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 group I in the reply filed on 2/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 9 states “a simulation mode”. This appears to be a typo. Examiner suggests replacing “a simulation mode” on page 2, line 9 with “a stimulation mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “a first kit ;”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests removing the space between “a first kit” and “;”.
Line 3 recites “a second kit ,”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests removing the space between “a second kit” and “,”.
Line 9 recites “the milk ejection reflex”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Examiner suggests replacing “the milk ejection reflex” with “a milk ejection reflex”.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 2 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 recites “one or more features selected from the list:”. Examiner suggests replacing “one or more features selected from the list:” in line 3 of claim 6 with “one or more features selected from:” to put the claim in clearer form.
Line 18 recites “an ambient condition sensor ,”. Claim 6 does not end with a period. Each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 7 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Line 2 recites “the same size cup”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Examiner suggests replacing “the same size cup” in line 2 of claim 7 with “a same size cup”.
Line 2-3 recites “wherein the first and second kits have identical or mirror symmetrical outer shape”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 8 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 9 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 10 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 11 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Line 2 recites “the other”. Examiner suggests replacing “the other” in line 2 with “the other of the first kit and second kit” to put the claim in clearer form as to what is meant by “the other”.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “The system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The system” in line 1 of claim 12 with “The breast pump system” to put the claim in clearer form that the system refers to the breast pump system and not the drive system of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1,
Line 5 recites “the kit”. Line 2 recites “a first kit” and line 3 recites “a second kit”. It is unclear which kit “the kit” refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the kit” to be “each of the first kit and the second kit”. Examiner suggests replacing “the kit” in line 5 of claim 1 with “each of the first kit and the second kit”.
Line 11 recites “the set of functional units of the second kit has no simulation mode”. It is unclear if the “simulation mode” is intended to be a “stimulation mode”. For examination purposes Examiner construes the “simulation mode” to be the “stimulation mode”. Examiner suggests replacing “simulation mode” in line 11 of claim 1 with “stimulation mode”.
Examiner notes claims 2-12 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
In regard to claim 2,
Line 2 recites “the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system ”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states that “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if an additional drive system is present to the drive system of claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for” to be “the set of functional units of the first kit of the drive system is for”. Examiner suggests replacing “the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for” in line 2 of claim 2 “the set of functional units of the first kit of the drive system is for”.
Line 3 recites “a stimulation mode”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces a stimulation mode. It is unclear if the stimulation mode of line 3 of claim 2 is the same as the stimulation mode of claim 1 or a second stimulation mode. For examination purposes Examiner construes a stimulation mode in claim 2 to be the stimulation mode. Examiner suggests replacing “a stimulation mode” in line 3 of claim 2 with “the stimulation mode”.
Line 3-4 recites “a different expression mode”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces a different expression mode. It is unclear if the different expression mode of line 3-4 of claim 2 is the same as the different expression mode of claim 1 or a second different expression mode. For examination purposes Examiner construes a different expression mode in claim 2 to be the different expression mode of claim 1.
Line 1-4 recites “wherein: the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. Claim 2 appears to state that the set of functional units of the first kit alone constitutes a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode. It is unclear if the second kit is required to constitute the drive system of claim 1 based on the limitations of claim 2. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests clarifying what is meant by claim 1 and 2.
Examiner notes claims 3-5 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
In regard to claim 3,
Line 1-3 recites “wherein the set of functional units of the second kit comprises a drive system for implementing an expression mode but no separate stimulation mode”. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and claim 2. Claim 1 states that “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if an additional drive system is present to the drive system of claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the set of functional units of the second kit comprises a drive system for” to be “the set of functional units of the second kit of the drive system is for”. Examiner suggests replacing “the set of functional units of the second kit comprises a drive system for” in line 1-2 of claim 2 “the set of functional units of the second kit of the drive system is for”.
Line 2 recites “an expression mode”. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if the expression mode of claim 3 is the same as the different expression mode of claim 1 since the second kit constitutes a drive system for implementing a different expression mode. It is unclear if the set of function units of the first kit and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a first expression mode and a second expression mode, with the set of function units of the first kit in claim 2 for implementing the first expression mode and the set of functional units of the second kit in claim 3 for implementing the second expression mode. For examination purposes Examiner construes “an expression mode” to be the same as “the different expression mode”. Examiner suggests clarifying the different expression mode of claim 1 and 2 and the expression mode of claim 3.
Examiner notes claims 4-5 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
In regard to claim 4,
Line 2 recites “the drive system of the first kit”. See 112 rejection above of claim 2. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 1 states that “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if the drive system of the first kit is in addition to the drive system of claim 1. Examiner suggests addressing the issues with claim 1 and 2 and amending claim 4 accordingly.
Line 3 recites “a stimulation mode”. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 2 recites “a stimulation mode” and claim 1 recites “a stimulation mode”. It is unclear if the stimulation mode of line 3 of claim 4 is in addition to the stimulation mode of claim 2 and claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same.
Line 4 recites “an expression mode”. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 3 recites “an expression mode”, claim 2 recites “a different expression mode” and claim 1 recites “a different expression mode”. It is unclear if the expression mode of line 4 of claim 4 is in addition to the expression mode of claim 3, claim 2, and claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same.
Line 5 recites “the drive system of the second kit”. See 112 rejection above of claim 3. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 1 states that “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if the drive system of the second kit is in addition to the drive system of claim 1. Examiner suggests addressing the issues with claim 1 and 3 and amending claim 4 accordingly.
Line 6 recites “an expression mode”. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 3 recites “an expression mode”, claim 2 recites “a different expression mode” and claim 1 recites “a different expression mode”. Claim 4, line 4 also recites “an expression mode”. It is unclear if the expression mode of line 6 of claim 4 is in addition to the expression mode of claim 4, line 4, claim 3, claim 2, and claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same.
Line 7 recites “a stimulation mode”. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 2 recites “a stimulation mode” and claim 1 recites “a stimulation mode”. Claim 4, line 3 also recites “a stimulation mode”. It is unclear if the stimulation mode of line 7 of claim 4 is in addition to the stimulation mode of line 3 of claim 4, claim 2 and claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same.
In regard to claim 5,
Line 2 recites “the drive system of the first kit”. See 112 rejection above of claim 2. Claim 5 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 1 states that “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if the drive system of the first kit is in addition to the drive system of claim 1. Examiner suggests addressing the issues with claim 1 and 2 and amending claim 5 accordingly.
Line 3 recites “a stimulation mode”. Claim 5 depends on claim 3, 2, and 1. Claim 2 recites “a stimulation mode” and claim 1 recites “a stimulation mode”. It is unclear if the stimulation mode of line 3 of claim 5 is in addition to the stimulation mode of claim 2 and claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same.
In regard to claim 6,
Line 1-2 recites “wherein the first and second kits each have a respective set of functional units”. Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states “wherein the first and second kits each have a different respective set of functional units”. It is unclear if the respective set of functional units in claim 6 are the same as the different respective set of functional units of claim 1 or are additional set of functional units. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “wherein the first and second kits each have a respective set of functional units, including a different combination” in line 1-2 of claim 6 with “wherein the set of functional units of the first and second kit include a different combination”.
Line 7 recites “a stimulation mode”. Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces a stimulation mode. It is unclear if the stimulation mode of claim 6 is the same as the stimulation mode of claim 1 or a second stimulation mode. For examination purposes Examiner construes a stimulation mode in claim 6 to be the stimulation mode. Examiner suggests replacing “a stimulation mode” in line 7 of claim 6 with “the stimulation mode”.
Line 7-8 recites “a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex”. Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 requires the set of functional units of the second kit has no simulation mode. Based on claim 6 it appears that the second kit could have a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex which would contradict claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes the second kit to not include a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex.
Line 9 recites “an expression mode”. Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces a different expression mode. It is unclear if the expression mode of claim 6 is the same as the different expression mode of claim 1 or an additional expression mode. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same.
In regard to claim 7,
Line 2-3 recites “wherein the first and second kits have identical or mirror symmetrical outer shape”. Claim 7 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 requires the first and second kits to have matching outer shapes. If the first and second kits have a mirror symmetrical outer shape it doesn’t appear they would have matching outer shapes. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner construes the outer shape to be a matching out shape.
In regard to claim 8,
Line 1 recites “each kit”. It is unclear which kit “each kit” refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes “each kit is” to be “the first kit and the second kit are”. Examiner suggests replacing “each kit is” in line 1 of claim 8 with “the first kit and the second kit are”.
In regard to claim 9,
Line 1 recites “each kit”. It is unclear which kit “each kit” refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes “each kit comprises” to be “the first kit and the second kit comprise”. Examiner suggests replacing “each kit comprises” in line 1 of claim 9 with “the first kit and the second kit comprise”.
Line 1-2 recites “wherein each kit comprises a drive system”. Claim 9 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states that “the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode”. It is unclear if additional drive systems are present to the drive system of claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes “wherein each kit comprises a drive system which comprises” to be “wherein the drive system comprises”. Examiner suggests replacing “wherein each kit comprises a drive system which comprises” in line 1-2 of claim 9 “wherein the drive system comprises”.
In regard to claim 11,
Line 2 recites “a desired set of functional units”. Claim 11 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states “wherein the first and second kits each have a different respective set of functional units”. It is unclear if the desired set of functional units are of the set of functional units of the first and second kit or additional to the set of function units of claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes “a desired set of functional units” to be “a desired set of functional units from the set of functional units of the first kit and the second kit”. Examiner suggests replacing “a desired set of functional units” in line 2 of claim 11 with “a desired set of functional units from the set of functional units of the first kit and the second kit”.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a first embodiment of Makower (U.S. PG publication 20200155738) further in view of a second embodiment of Makower (U.S. PG publication 20200155738).
In regard to claim 1,
The first embodiment of Makower discloses a breast pump system (see figure 21 wherein two devices/pumps are shown which form a system and paragraph [0187]; Examiner notes the battery 48 is provided only in one pump, see also paragraph [0185] which describes how the controller interacts with the pumps; paragraph [0188] also provides alternate configurations) comprising:
a first kit (main body 34 of the left side pump, battery 48, controller 52 provided in the left side pump, and the components within item 34 of the left side pump which enable milk expression as detailed in paragraph [0185]); and
a second kit (main body 34 on the right side pump, controller 52 and the components within item 34 of the right side pump which enable milk expression as detailed in paragraph [0185]),
wherein the first and second kits each have a different respective set of functional units which thereby define a different set of functional capabilities of the kit (see analysis above wherein the first kit has a controller, battery, and pumping components and the second kit has a housing, controller, and pumping components which thereby define a different set of functional capabilities of the kit), and the first and second kits have matching outer shapes (see figure 21 wherein the outer shape of the main body 34 of the first kit and second kit are matching),
wherein:
the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a different expression mode (see paragraph [0185] and analysis above wherein milk is expressed); and
the set of functional units of the second kit has no simulation mode (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis above wherein the set of functional units of the second kit has no stimulation mode).
The first embodiment of Makower is silent as to the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode.
The second embodiment of Makower teaches the set of functional units (figure 34, item 3400, 3404, and 46) of a kit (see pumping device of figure 34) constitutes a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex (paragraph [0214]: wherein the vibration provides stimulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each pump of the first embodiment to include vibration members 3400 and the necessary components to vibrate the vibration members, as taught by the second embodiment of Makower, for the purpose of facilitating milk extraction (paragraph [0214]). It is noted that although both pumps of the first embodiment contain the vibration members as modified by the second embodiment of Makower, the set of functional units for implementing a stimulation mode (the vibration members and the necessary components to vibrate the vibration members) only in the first pump are construed as being components of the first kit while the vibration members within the second pump are not construed as being a part of the functional units of the second kit. The set of functional units of the second kit has no stimulation mode as the second kit only contains the main body 34 on the right side pump, a controller, and the pumping components for milk expression in the right side pump. Modifying the first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower therefore results in the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode. Claim 1 does not preclude other components of the breast pump system to be present that are separate from the claimed functional units of each of the first kit and the second kit.
In regard to claim 2,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis of claim 1 above wherein the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode).
In regard to claim 3,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the breast pump system of claim 2, wherein the set of functional units of the second kit comprises a drive system for implementing an expression mode but no separate stimulation mode (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis of claim 1 above wherein the set of functional units of the second kit comprises a drive system for implementing an expression mode only. The set of functional units of the second kit does not comprise a separate stimulation mode).
In regard to claim 4,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the breast pump system of claim 3, wherein:
the drive system of the first kit comprises a system for generating a pressure waveform for use during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; paragraph [0214] and [0198]; vibrating frequency waveform) and a different pressure waveform for use during an expression mode (paragraph [0198], [0012], and [0185]; waveform used during milk expression);
the drive system of the second kit comprises a system for generating a pressure waveform for use during an expression mode (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; paragraph [0185] and [0012]; waveform used during milk expression) but no different pressure waveform for use during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis of claim 3 and 1 above).
In regard to claim 5,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the breast pump system of claim 3, wherein:
the drive system of the first kit comprises a system for generating a mechanical contact pressure waveform for use during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; paragraph [0214]).
In regard to claim 6,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the breast pump system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits each have a respective set of functional units, including a different combination of one of more features selected from the list: a battery; an electrical pump; a mechanical system for generating a constant baseline under-pressure; a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex; a system for generating a pressure waveform during an expression mode; a system for generating a pressure waveform during a massage mode; a milk collection vessel; a user input interface for receiving user commands; a user output interface for providing status information to a user; a communications interface for communicating wirelessly with an external device; a milk sensor; a timer; and an ambient condition sensor (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis of claim 1 wherein the first kit has a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex, a battery, and a system for generating a pressure waveform during an expression mode, and the second kit has a system for generating a pressure waveform during an expression mode).
In regard to claim 7,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits are for fitting to a feeding bra with the same cup size (paragraph [0007]-[0008] and [0174]; Examiner notes “for fitting to a feeding bra with the same cup size” is a functional limitation. A feeding bra with the same cup size is not positively required by the claim. The first and second kits are fully capable of the recited function due to their structure) and/or wherein the first and second kits have identical or mirror symmetrical outer shape (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see figure 21).
In regard to claim 8,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1.
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower is silent as to wherein each kit is attached to a respective milk collecting vessel.
A third embodiment of Makower teaches wherein a kit (see figure 1B) is attached to a respective milk collecting vessel (item 60; paragraph [0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each kit of the first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower to be attached to a respective milk collecting vessel, as taught by the third embodiment of Makower, for the purpose of storing milk (paragraph [0008] of Makower).
In regard to claim 9,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each kit comprises a drive system (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation) which comprises a controller (figure 21, item 52).
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower is silent as to wherein each kit comprises a drive system which comprises a valve and a controller for controlling the valve.
The third embodiment of Makower teaches wherein a kit comprises a drive system which comprises a valve (item 50) and a controller for controlling the valve (paragraph [0156]; Examiner notes the controller controls the valve as the controller controls the vacuum levels which as a result controls the flow of milk which controls whether the valve is open or closed. When the controller enables milk flow, the valve is opened via the milk flow. If the controller does not enable milk flow, the valve is closed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each kit which contains a controller of the first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower to include a drive system which comprises a valve, as taught by the third embodiment of Makower, therefore resulting in wherein each kit comprises a drive system which comprises a valve and a controller for controlling the valve for the purpose of preventing back flow or milk (paragraph [0157] of Makower).
In regard to claim 10,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits are coupled together by a wired connection (see figure 21, item 2012).
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower is silent as to wherein: only one of the first and second kits has: a user input interface and a user output interface; or a noise sensor, and/or wherein only one of the first and second kits has a communications interface for communicating wirelessly with an external device.
A fourth embodiment teaches a kit (figure 28, item 100) has a communications interface (figure 28, item 472) for communicating wirelessly with an external device (figure 28, item 470).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the first kit or second kit to include a communications interface for communicating wirelessly with an external device, as taught by the fourth embodiment of Makower, for the purpose of sending data (paragraph [0197]). It is noted Makower also supports a configuration (see figure 22) where only one controller is present between each of the first kit and second kit (see paragraph [0188]).
In regard to claim 12,
The first embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits are each configurable by a user to select a desired set of functional units (see analysis of claim 1 above; the desired system main body can be selected; see paragraph [0185]-[0188]; Examiner notes the claim does not specify what the desired set of functional units are selected to do. It is Examiner’s position by choosing to use the system of figure 21, a desired set of functional units are selected).
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a fifth embodiment of Makower (U.S. PG publication 20200155738) further in view of the second embodiment of Makower (U.S. PG publication 20200155738).
In regard to claim 1,
The fifth embodiment of Makower discloses a breast pump system (see figure 23 wherein one pump is attached to one of the users breasts and a skin contact member is attached to the other breast; paragraph [0189]; see also paragraph [0149] wherein skin contact member 10 can be made from a compressible member) comprising:
a first kit (main body 34 and the components within item 34 which enable milk expression as detailed in paragraph [0189]); and
a second kit (housing of the skin contact member 10 and sensor 54 within the skin contact member shown in figure 24),
wherein the first and second kits each have a different respective set of functional units which thereby define a different set of functional capabilities of the kit (see analysis above wherein the first kit and the second kit have different functional units which thereby define a different set of functional capabilities of the kit), and the first and second kits have matching outer shapes (see figure 23 wherein the outer shapes of the first and second kits are both circles and therefore are matching),
wherein:
the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a different expression mode (see paragraph [0189] and analysis above wherein milk is expressed); and
the set of functional units of the second kit has no simulation mode (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis above wherein the set of functional units of the second kit has no stimulation mode).
The first embodiment of Makower is silent as to the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode.
The second embodiment of Makower teaches the set of functional units (figure 34, item 3400, 3404, and 46) of a kit (see pumping device of figure 34) constitutes a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex (paragraph [0214]: wherein the vibration provides stimulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump of the first kit of the fifth embodiment to include vibration members 3400 and the necessary components to vibrate the vibration members, as taught by the second embodiment of Makower, for the purpose of facilitating milk extraction (paragraph [0214]). The set of functional units of the second kit has no stimulation mode as the second kit only contains item 10 and sensor 54. Modifying the fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower therefore results in the set of functional units of the first and second kit together constitute a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode. Claim 1 does not preclude other components of the breast pump system to be present that are separate from the function units of the claimed first kit and second kit.
In regard to claim 2,
The fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis of claim 1 above wherein the set of functional units of the first kit comprises a drive system for implementing a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex and a different expression mode).
In regard to claim 6,
The fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the breast pump system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits each have a respective set of functional units, including a different combination of one of more features selected from the list: a battery; an electrical pump; a mechanical system for generating a constant baseline under-pressure; a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex; a system for generating a pressure waveform during an expression mode; a system for generating a pressure waveform during a massage mode; a milk collection vessel; a user input interface for receiving user commands; a user output interface for providing status information to a user; a communications interface for communicating wirelessly with an external device; a milk sensor; a timer; and an ambient condition sensor (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see analysis of claim 1 wherein the first kit has a system for generating a pressure waveform during a stimulation mode for triggering the milk ejection reflex, a battery, and a system for generating a pressure waveform during an expression mode, and the second kit has a sensor).
In regard to claim 7,
The fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits are for fitting to a feeding bra with the same cup size (paragraph [0007]-[0008] and [0174]; Examiner notes “for fitting to a feeding bra with the same cup size” is a functional limitation. A feeding bra with the same cup size is not positively required by the claim. The first and second kits are fully capable of the recited function due to their structure) and/or wherein the first and second kits have identical or mirror symmetrical outer shape.
In regard to claim 8,
The fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each kit is attached to a respective milk collecting vessel (see figure 24 wherein item 60 and tubing 32E are construed as each being a respective milk collecting vessel).
In regard to claim 11,
The fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein only one of the first and second kits has an electrical pump (see pump of first kit; paragraph [0189]), and the other (second kit) has a mechanical system for generating a constant baseline under-pressure (see analysis of claim 1 above wherein item 10 functions as a mechanical system for generating a constant baseline under-pressure as item 10 is a compressible member as supported by paragraph [0149]. Examiner notes the sensor within item 10 can also function with the controller to generate a constant baseline under-pressure. Examiner notes “for generating a constant baseline under-pressure” is a functional limitation. The mechanical system is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure.) .
In regard to claim 12,
The fifth embodiment of Makower in view of the second embodiment of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second kits are each configurable by a user to select a desired set of functional units (see analysis of claim 1 above; the desired system can be selected; see paragraph [0189]; Examiner notes the claim does not specify what the desired set of functional units are selected to do. It is Examiner’s position by choosing to use the system of figure 24, a desired set of functional units are selected).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDRA LALONDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/BRANDY S LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785