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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figure 1 includes reference numeral 80. The Examiner believes this is the incorrect reference numeral as reference numeral 80 refers to two opposing side arms which is not what is being annotated in Figure 1 by this reference numeral.
Figure 4 contains two reference numeral 85s. The Examiner believes these reference numerals are incorrect. Reference numeral 85 refers to the edge of the spindle receptacle 82. The Examiner believes the top reference numeral 85 should be amended to recite 88 because it is labeling the rear wall. The Examiner believes the bottom reference numeral 85 should be amended to 82 because it is labeling the spindle receptacle. These suggestions are consistent with how the Drawings were amended in parent application 16/756,092 now USPAT 11,094,077.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
510 as shown in Fig. 5.
B in Fig. 20a.
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 9, 11, 16 – 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the start of an expressing process” and “the vertical use position of the breastpump.” The Examiner suggests amending these to recite “[[the]] a start of an expressing process” and “[[the]] a vertical use position of the breastpump” to provide antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 3 recites “the first cup” twice. The Examiner suggests amending these recitations to recite “the rigid first cup” to improve claim language consistency when referring to this structure.
Claim 4 recites “the rigid cup,” “the flexible pump membrane,” and “with expressed milk.” The Examiner suggests amending these to recite “the rigid first cup,” “the pump membrane,” and “with the expressed milk” to improve the claim language consistency when referring to these limitations for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “the first cup.” The Examiner suggests amending this to recite “the first rigid cup” to improve the claim language consistency when referring to this structure for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites “the output.” The Examiner suggests amending this to recite “[[the]] an output” to provide proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation within the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the passage opening,” “the use position of the breast shield,” and “with expressed milk.” The Examiner suggests amending these to recite “the first passage opening,” “[[the]] a use position,” and “with the expressed milk” to improve the claim language consistency when referring to these limitations thereby providing proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “the end of the expressing process.” The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to recite “[[the]] an end of the expressing process” to provide proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation.
Claim 9 recites “the end of the expressing process.” The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to recite “[[the]] an end of the expressing process” to provide proper antecedent basis for this claim limitation.
Claim 11 recites “The breastpump as claimed in claims claim 9.” The Examiner suggests amending the preamble to recite “The breastpump as claimed in claim 9” to resolve any confusion regarding the preamble.
Claim 16 recites “the first rigid cup.” The Examiner suggests amending this to recite “the [[first]] rigid first cup” to improve the claim language consistency when referring to this limitation and thereby provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “the first rigid cup.” The Examiner suggests amending this to recite “the [[first]] rigid first cup” to improve the claim language consistency when referring to this limitation and thereby provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “were in.” The Examiner suggests amending this to recite “[[were in]] wherein” to improve the grammar of the claim language.
Claim 18 recites “the first rigid cup” twice. The Examiner suggests amending these recitations to recite “the [[first]] rigid first cup” to improve the claim language consistency when referring to these limitations and thereby provide proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9 – 11, 13, 14, 19 and 20 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “a breast shield with an interior.” Claim 9 recites “an interior of the breast shield.” Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it is unclear if the “interior of the breast shield” recited in Claim 9 is referring to the same “interior” recited in Claim 1 or a separate interior.
Claim 1 recites “a breast shield with an interior.” Claim 10 recites “an interior of the breast shield.” Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it is unclear if the “interior of the breast shield” recited in Claim 10 is referring to the same “interior” recited in Claim 1 or a separate interior.
Claim 11 recites the following:
The breastpump as claimed in claims wherein a venting valve for venting the interior of the breast shield is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it is unclear what “with the latter” is referring to. Does with the latter refer to the second valve or a different structure altogether? Is the venting valve considered the “former” while the “second valve” is considered the later in this claim? Further clarity regarding this limitation is requested.
Claim 1 recites “a cyclically changing negative pressure.” Claim 13 recites “the applied negative pressure.” Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it cannot be determined if the cyclically changing negative pressure of Claim 1 is referring to the applied negative pressure of Claim 13.
Claim 1 recites “a cyclically changing negative pressure.” Claim 14 recites “the applied negative pressure.” Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it cannot be determined if the cyclically changing negative pressure of Claim 1 is referring to the applied negative pressure of Claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the draining channel.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the first valve” and “the second valve.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is dependent upon rejected Claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 15 – 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Felber (US 2014/0227112 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Felber discloses (Figs. 1 – 6) a breastpump for expressing human breastmilk (see Fig. 1 and [0037]), wherein the breastpump comprises a breast shield (52) (see [0037]) with an interior (see at 52 in Fig. 1) (see [0037]) for receiving a mother's breast and a pump chamber (14, 15) (see [0038] “The pump chamber is composed of two chamber areas 14, 15.”), wherein a cyclically changing negative pressure is appliable to the interior by means of the pump chamber (see [0037], [0044], [0049], and [0050]), wherein a milk channel (50) (see [0037]) leads from the interior into the pump chamber through a first inlet opening (143) (see [0039]), expressed milk flowing through said milk channel from the interior of the breast shield into the pump chamber (see Fig. 2 and [0039] – [0041]), and wherein the pump chamber has an outlet opening (see at 18 in Fig. 3 and see [0038]), through which the expressed milk flows from the pump chamber into a milk collection container (4) (see [0037]), wherein the outlet opening, at least at the start of an expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the pump chamber (see Fig. 3 where the outlet opening 18 is located in the upper region 14 of the pump chamber 14, 15) and/or above the inlet opening in the vertical use position of the breastpump (“or” conjunction means that the limitation “the inlet opening in the vertical use position of the breastpump” is optional).
With regards to claim 2, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, and Felber further discloses (see Figs. 1 – 6) wherein the milk channel (50) (see [0037]) forms a vacuum channel (see [0037], [0044], [0049], and [0050]) for applying the cyclically changing negative pressure to the interior (see at 52 in Fig. 1) (see [0037]) of the breast shield (52) (see [0037]).
With regards to claim 3, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, and Felber further discloses (see Figs. 1 – 6) wherein the pump chamber (14, 15) (see [0038]) comprises a rigid first cup (14) and a flexible pump membrane (2) (see [0142]), wherein the pump membrane rests against the first cup in sealing fashion (see [0040] and [0048]) and wherein the pump membrane is driven and a negative pressure is producible in the pump chamber as a result of the movement of said pump membrane relative to the first cup (see [0037], [0044] “By means of the linear movement of the diaphragm 2 along the longitudinal axis of the connection head 22, it is possible to generate an underpressure in the interior of the cavity and therefore in the first chamber area 14,” [0049], and [0050]).
With regards to claim 5, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 3, and Felber further discloses (see Figs. 1 – 6) wherein the first cup (14) has an outlet groove (18) (see [0038] and Fig. 5), which extends from the outlet opening (see at 18 in Fig. 3 and see [0038]) of the pump chamber (14, 15) to an output (150) (see [0039] and Fig. 5), wherein the outlet groove, at least over a portion, extends in a direction perpendicular to the movement direction of the pump membrane (2) (see Figs. 5 – 6 and the outlet groove 18 extending up-down while the pump membrane 2 moves right-left).
With regards to claim 15, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 3, and Felber further discloses (see Figs. 1 – 6) wherein the breastpump (see Fig. 1) comprises a pump housing (1) (see [0037]) with a drive (10)(see [0037]) for the pump membrane (2) (see [0042]) and wherein the rigid first cup (14) is detachably connected to the pump housing (see [0038] “As can be seen from FIG. 2, a cover 13 is fastened on an outer wall of the housing 1. It is preferably fastened releasably, for example screwed on.”).
With regards to claim 16, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 15, and Felber further discloses (see Figs. 1 – 6) wherein the first rigid cup (14) is a constituent part of a multipart module (3, 5, 13), which is connectable together to the pump housing (1) (see [0038]).
With regards to claim 18, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 3, and Felber further discloses (see Figs. 1 – 6) wherein the first rigid cup (14) is a constituent part of a multipart module (3, 5, 13), which is connectable together to the pump housing (1) (see [0038]), wherein the first rigid cup is a constituent part of an adapter part (13) and wherein a valve body (3) (see [0039]) is held in a receptacle (see near 150 in Fig. 5) of the adapter part (see [0039] and Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felber in view of Weber et al. (US 2012/0277728 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Weber”).
With regards to claim 7, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein the breast shield has a first passage opening, which forms part of the milk channel, wherein the passage opening, at least at the start of the expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the interior in the use position of the breast shield such that the interior below the first passage opening is fillable with expressed milk.
Nonetheless Weber, which is within the analogous art of devices and methods for expressing human breast milk (see abstract and title), teaches the breast shield (4) has a first passage opening (see passage opening at 43 in Fig. 7a), which forms part of the milk channel (the channel formed by the opening at 43 in Fig. 7a and channel of first line 2), wherein the passage opening, at least at the start of the expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the interior in the use position of the breast shield such that the interior below the first passage opening is fillable with expressed milk (see Examiner annotated Fig. 7a below; hereinafter referred to as “Fig. A”)
PNG
media_image1.png
435
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breast shield of Felber in view of a teaching of Weber such that the breast shield has a first passage opening, which forms part of the milk channel, wherein the passage opening, at least at the start of the expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the interior in the use position of the breast shield such that the interior below the first passage opening is fillable with expressed milk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Weber teaches that this configuration of a breast shield is designed to approximate the natural sucking of babies (see [0076] of Weber).
With regards to claim 17, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 16, however Felber is silent with regards to the module moreover comprises a first part with a flow opening for connecting to the interior, a valve body with at least one valve and a second part with the first rigid cup for forming the pump chamber, wherein the valve body is arranged between the first and second part and were in the module as a whole is connectable to the housing of the breast pump in a sealing and detachable manner.
Nonetheless Weber, which is within the analogous art of devices and methods for expressing human breast milk (see abstract and title), teaches the module (3, 5, 13) moreover comprises a first part (3) with a flow opening (31) for connecting to the interior (see Fig. A above), a valve body (see at 5 in Fig. 1) with at least one valve (5) and a second part (13) with a rigid cup (133) for forming the pump chamber (see [0071]), wherein the valve body is arranged between the first and second part (see Figs. 1-5 which shows the valve body comprising at least one valve 5 arranged/located between the first and second part) and wherein the hygiene module as a whole is connectable to the housing of the breastpump in a sealing and detachable manner (see [0071] as the cover 13 is detachably connectable to the housing the hygiene module as a whole is then connectable to the housing of the breastpump in a sealing and detachable manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the module of the breastpump of Felber in view of a teaching of Weber such that the module moreover comprises a first part with a flow opening for connecting to the interior, a valve body with at least one valve and a second part with the first rigid cup for forming the pump chamber, wherein the valve body is arranged between the first and second part and were in the module as a whole is connectable to the housing of the breast pump in a sealing and detachable manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Weber teaches a variety of locations for a flow opening to be present (see [0093] of Weber). Furthermore, the a nonreturn valve opens only when there is sufficient pressure when the pump chamber is sufficiently filled with milk. Thereby keeping the dead volume to a minimum (see [0079] of Weber). Finally, the detachable connection of the cover allows for maintaining the internal pump structure (see [0073] of Weber).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felber in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2016/0000982 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Alvarez”).
With regards to claim 8, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however Felber is silent with regards to wherein the milk channel is able to be closed off by means of a first valve in order to remove the expressed milk from the pump chamber at the end of the expressing process.
Nonetheless Alvarez, which is within the analogous art of methods and apparatuses for expressing human breast milk (see title and abstract), teaches (see Fig. 3) the milk channel (see the channel at 265 in Fig. 3) is able to be closed off by means of a first valve (280) in order to remove the expressed milk from the pump chamber (260) at the end of the expressing process (see [0054] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the milk channel of Felber in view of a teaching of Alvarez such that the milk channel is able to be closed off by means of a first valve in order to remove the expressed milk from the pump chamber at the end of the expressing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Alvarez teaches that the inclusion of a first valve in the milk channel provides for passage of milk while maintaining vacuum pressure in the pressure chamber (see [0054] of Alvarez).
With regards to claim 13, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however Felber is silent with regards to wherein a fourth valve is present in the milk channel, said fourth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure.
Nonetheless, Alvarez teaches (Fig. 3) a fourth valve (280) is present in the milk channel (see channel at 265 in Fig. 3), said fourth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure (see [0054], [0065] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the milk channel of Felber with a teaching of Alvarez such that a fourth valve is present in the milk channel, said fourth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Alvarez teaches that the inclusion of a valve in the milk channel provides for the passage of milk while maintaining vacuum pressure in the pressure chamber (see [0054] of Alvarez).
Claim(s) 9 – 11, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felber in view of Jaeger-Waldau (US 2013/0053764 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein a draining channel is present between an interior of the breast shield and the pump chamber, said draining channel extending separately from the milk channel, and wherein the draining channel is able to be closed off by means of a second valve, wherein the draining channel is closed during the expressing process and opened at the end of the expressing process.
Nonetheless Jaeger-Waldau, which is within the analogous art of pumps for breast milk (see abstract), teaches a draining channel (3) is present between an interior (see at 21 in Fig. 1) of the breast shield (21) and the pump chamber (see at 20 in Fig. 1), said draining channel extending separately from the milk channel (see at 16 in Fig. 1), and wherein the draining channel is able to be closed off by means of a second valve (17) (see [0031]), wherein the draining channel is closed during the expressing process (see [0031]) and opened at the end of the expressing process (see [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of Felber in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that a draining channel is present between an interior of the breast shield and the pump chamber, said draining channel extending separately from the milk channel, and wherein the draining channel is able to be closed off by means of a second valve, wherein the draining channel is closed during the expressing process and opened at the end of the expressing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jaeger-Waldau teaches the floater valve/second valve prevents liquid from being aspirated into the pump. Dried milk can agglutinate and block the inlet-and-outlet valves of the pump (see [0031] of Jaeger-Waldau). Furthermore, the addition of a suction line/draining channel allows for connection to a venting line with a vent that vents to the atmosphere. The venting valve lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power of the operation of a gyro valve. In fact this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
The breastpump of Felber modified in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau will hereinafter be referred to as the breastpump of Felber and Jaeger-Waldau.
With regards to claim 10, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein a venting valve for venting an interior of the breast shield is present.
Nonetheless Jaeger-Waldau, which is within the analogous art of pumps for breast milk (see abstract), teaches a venting valve (6) for venting an interior (see at 21 in Fig. 1) of the breast shield (21) (see [0019], [0048], and [0049]) is present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of Felber in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that the breast pump comprises a venting valve for venting an interior of the breast shield is present. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a venting valve lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power of the operation of a gyro valve. In fact this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
With regards to claim 11, the breastpump of Felber and Jaeger-Waldau teaches the claimed invention of claim 9, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein a venting valve for venting the interior of the breast shield is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter.
Nonetheless Jaeger-Waldau, which is within the analogous art of pumps for breast milk (see abstract), further teaches (Fig. 1) a venting valve (6) for venting the interior (see at 21 in Fig. 1) of the breast shield (21; see [0019] and [0048-0049]) is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve (17) and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter (see abstract, [0018], and [0031-0032] wherein the venting valve 6 is closed when the electric motor switched on and when the electric motor is turned on milk accumulates in the milk outlet vale 18 and the second valve 17 is closed when the accumulating milk is not discharged sufficiently fast enough into the reservoir/the bottle via the milk outlet valve when the electric motor is off both valves are then open).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breast pump of Felber and Jaeger-Waldau with a further teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that a venting valve for venting the interior of the breast shield is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Jaeger-Waldau teaches that a venting valve lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power for the operation of a gyro valve. In fact, this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
With regards to claim 14, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein a fifth valve is present in the draining channel, said fifth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure.
Nonetheless, Jaeger-Waldau teaches (Fig. 1) a fifth valve (17) is present in the draining channel (3), said fifth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure (see [0019] and [0031-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of Felber with a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that a fifth valve is present in the draining channel, said fifth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jaeger-Waldau teaches that the fifth valve or floater valve prevents liquid from being aspirated into the pump as dried milk can agglutinate and block the inlet-outlet valves of the pump (see [0031] of Jaeger-Waldau).
With regards to claim 19, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 18, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein the multipart module further comprises a manual actuation means for simultaneous actuation of the first valve and the second valve.
Nonetheless, Jaeger-Waldau further teaches the module further comprises a manual actuation (11; see [0042]) means for simultaneous actuation of the first (18) and second (6) valve (see the abstract, [0042], and [0047-0048] wherein the electronic control system controls the pump via the venting valve which in turn controls the level of milk within the milk outlet valve which requires a sufficient amount to open the valve slit. The valves would be simultaneously actuatable because once the pump is turned off the venting valve is actuated open which would then cause the milk outlet valve to be closed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the module of the breastpump of Felber in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that the module further comprises a manual actuation means for simultaneous actuation of the first and second valve. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Jaeger-Waldau teaches that controlling a venting valve via an electronic control system lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power for the operation of a gyro valve. In fact, this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
The breastpump of Felber modified in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau will hereinafter be referred to as the breastpump of Felber and Jaeger-Waldau.
With regards to claim 20, the breastpump of Felber and Jaeger-Waldau teaches the claimed invention of claim 19, and the breastpump of Felber and Jaeger-Waldau further teaches (Figs. 1-5 and 7a-8 of Weber) the adapter part (13 of Felber) and the actuation part (the electronic control system 11 of Jaeger-Waldau) are not detachable from one another in a non-destructive manner (see Fig. 1 which shows that the electronic control system is connected in a non-detachable manner wherein detaching would require cutting what appears to be electrical lines which would be a destructive manner see [0025] of Jaeger-Waldau).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felber and Quackenbush et al. (US 2008/025503 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Quackenbush”).
With regards to claim 12, Felber discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however, Felber is silent with regards to wherein a third valve is present, said third valve maintaining a baseline negative pressure in the interior of the breast shield when the pressure of the cyclically changing negative pressure increases.
Nonetheless, Quackenbush teaches (Figs. 6 and 11) a third valve (280) is present, said third valve maintaining a baseline negative pressure in the interior (see at 212 in Fig. 6) of the breast shield (212) when the pressure of the cyclically changing negative pressure increases (see [0063], [0066-0068], and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of Felber with a teaching of Quackenbush such that a third valve is present, said third valve maintaining a baseline negative pressure in the interior of the breast shield when the pressure of the cyclically changing negative pressure increases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Quackenbush teaches benefits would include for example, reducing the amount of energy required to thereafter reach maximum vacuum. The "elastic rebound" of the nipple upon release of vacuum would also be minimized. Further benefits may result from being able to control a given vacuum cycle between desired set points of actually sensed, and thereby actually applied pressures, which set points may be made numerous for more complex, yet precisely controlled suction curves. The present invention also provides comfort to the nursing mother in that the reciprocation of a breast or nipple within the breast shield is minimized (see [0013] of Quackenbush).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 15 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 – 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,904,077 B2 (hereinafter referred to as the ’077 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
With regards to claim 1, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites a breastpump for expressing human breastmilk, wherein the breastpump comprises a breast shield with an interior for receiving a mother's breast and a pump chamber, wherein a cyclically changing negative pressure is appliable to the interior by means of the pump chamber, wherein a milk channel leads from the interior into the pump chamber through a first inlet opening, expressed milk flowing through said milk channel from the interior of the breast shield into the pump chamber, and wherein the pump chamber has an outlet opening, through which the expressed milk flows from the pump chamber into a milk collection container, wherein the outlet opening, at least at the start of an expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the pump chamber and/or above the inlet opening in the vertical use position of the breastpump (see Col. 24, lines 1 – 27 of the ’077 Patent).
With regards to claim 2, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 23 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein the milk channel forms a vacuum channel for applying the cyclically changing negative pressure to the interior of the breast shield (see Col. 24, lines 28 – 31 of the ’077 Patent).
With regards to claim 3, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, and Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein the pump chamber comprises a rigid first cup and a flexible pump membrane, wherein the pump membrane rests against the first cup in sealing fashion and wherein the pump membrane is driven and a negative pressure is producible in the pump chamber as a result of the movement of said pump membrane relative to the first cup (see Col. 24, lines 1 – 27 of the ’077 Patent).
With regards to claim 4, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 3, and Claim 24 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein a flexible media separation membrane is arranged between the rigid cup and the flexible pump membrane such that the pump membrane is protected from contact with expressed milk (see Col. 24, lines 32 – 36).
With regards to claim 5, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 3, and Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein the first cup has an outlet groove, which extends from the outlet opening of the pump chamber to an output, wherein the outlet groove, at least over a portion, extends in a direction perpendicular to the movement direction of the pump membrane (see Col. 24, lines 1 – 27 of the ’077 Patent).
With regards to claim 6, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 4, and Claims 22 and 25 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein the pump membrane or the flexible media separation membrane closes off an outlet groove of the rigid first cup to form a channel that is closed apart from the outlet opening and the output (see Col. 24, lines 1 – 27 and 37 – 40 of the ’077 Patent).
With regards to claim 15, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 3, and Claim 26 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein the breastpump comprises a pump housing with a drive for the pump membrane and wherein the rigid first cup is detachably connected to the pump housing (see Col. 24, lines 41 – 44).
With regards to claim 16, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 15, and Claim 27 of the ’077 Patent further recites wherein the first rigid cup is a constituent part of a multipart module, which is connectable together to the pump housing (see Col. 24, lines 45 – 49).
Claim(s) 7, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 and 27 of the ’077 Patent in view of Weber.
With regards to claim 7, Claim 22 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of the claimed invention of claim 1, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein the breast shield has a first passage opening, which forms part of the milk channel, wherein the passage opening, at least at the start of the expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the interior in the use position of the breast shield such that the interior below the first passage opening is fillable with expressed milk.
Nonetheless Weber, which is within the analogous art of devices and methods for expressing human breast milk (see abstract and title), teaches the breast shield (4) has a first passage opening (see passage opening at 43 in Fig. 7a), which forms part of the milk channel (the unitary channel formed by the opening at 43 in Fig. 7a and channel of 2), wherein the passage opening, at least at the start of the expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the interior in the use position of the breast shield such that the interior below the first passage opening is fillable with expressed milk (see Fig. A reiterated below)
PNG
media_image1.png
435
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breast shield of the ’077 Patent in view of a teaching of Weber such that the breast shield has a first passage opening, which forms part of the milk channel, wherein the passage opening, at least at the start of the expressing process, is arranged in an upper region of the interior in the use position of the breast shield such that the interior below the first passage opening is fillable with expressed milk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Weber teaches that this configuration of a breast shield is designed to approximate the natural sucking of babies (see [0076] of Weber).
With regards to claim 17, Claim 27 of ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of the claimed invention of claim 16, however the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to the module moreover comprises a first part with a flow opening for connecting to the interior, a valve body with at least one valve and a second part with the first rigid cup for forming the pump chamber, wherein the valve body is arranged between the first and second part and were in the module as a whole is connectable to the housing of the breast pump in a sealing and detachable manner.
Nonetheless Weber, which is within the analogous art of devices and methods for expressing human breast milk (see abstract and title), teaches the module (3, 5, 13) moreover comprises a first part (3) with a flow opening (31) for connecting to the interior, a valve body with at least one valve (5) and a second part (13) with a rigid cup (133) for forming the pump chamber (see [0071]), wherein the valve body is arranged between the first and second part (see Figs. 1-5 which shows the valve body comprising at least one valve 5 arranged/located between the first and second part) and wherein the hygiene module as a whole is connectable to the housing of the breastpump in a sealing and detachable manner (see [0071] as the cover 13 is detachably connectable to the housing the hygiene module as a whole is then connectable to the housing of the breastpump in a sealing and detachable manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the module of the breastpump of the ’077 Patent in view of a teaching of Weber such that the module moreover comprises a first part with a flow opening for connecting to the interior, a valve body with at least one valve and a second part with the first rigid cup for forming the pump chamber, wherein the valve body is arranged between the first and second part and were in the module as a whole is connectable to the housing of the breast pump in a sealing and detachable manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Weber teaches a variety of locations for a flow opening to be present (see [0093] of Weber). Furthermore, the a nonreturn valve opens only when there is sufficient pressure when the pump chamber is sufficiently filled with milk. Thereby keeping the dead volume to a minimum (see [0079] of Weber). Finally, the detachable connection of the cover allows for maintaining the internal pump structure (see [0073] of Weber).
With regards to claim 18, Claim 22 of the’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 3, however the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein the first rigid cup is a constituent part of a multipart module, which is connectable together to the pump housing, wherein the first rigid cup is a constituent part of an adapter part and wherein a valve body is held in a receptacle of the adapter part.
Nonetheless Weber, which is within the analogous art of devices and methods for expressing human breast milk (see abstract and title), teaches the first rigid cup (133) is a constituent part of a multipart module (3, 5, 13), which is connectable together to the pump housing (1)(see [0073]), wherein the first rigid cup is a constituent part of an adapter part (13) and wherein a valve body (5) is held in a receptacle of the adapter part (see Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breast pump of the ’077 Patent in view of a teaching of Weber such that the first rigid cup is a constituent part of a multipart module, which is connectable together to the pump housing, wherein the first rigid cup is a constituent part of an adapter part and wherein a valve body is held in a receptacle of the adapter part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Weber teaches that this configuration allows for access to the internal structure of the pump (see [0073] of Weber). Furthermore, the valve only opens when there is sufficient pressure when the pump chamber is sufficiently filled with milk thereby minimizing the dead volume (see [0079] of Weber).
The breast pump of the ’077 Patent modified in view of a teaching of Weber will hereinafter be referred to as the breast pump of the ’077 Patent and Weber.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of the ’077 Patent in view of Alvarez.
With regards to claim 8, Claim 22 of the’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, however the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein the milk channel is able to be closed off by means of a first valve in order to remove the expressed milk from the pump chamber at the end of the expressing process.
Nonetheless Alvarez, which is within the analogous art of methods and apparatuses for expressing human breast milk (see title and abstract), teaches (see Fig. 3) the milk channel (see the channel at 265 in Fig. 3) is able to be closed off by means of a first valve (280) in order to remove the expressed milk from the pump chamber (260) at the end of the expressing process (see [0054] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the milk channel of the breast pump of the ’077 Patent in view of a teaching of Alvarez such that the milk channel is able to be closed off by means of a first valve in order to remove the expressed milk from the pump chamber at the end of the expressing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Alvarez teaches that the inclusion of a first valve in the milk channel provides for passage of milk while maintaining vacuum pressure in the pressure chamber (see [0054] of Alvarez).
With regards to claim 13, Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, however the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein a fourth valve is present in the milk channel, said fourth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure.
Nonetheless, Alvarez teaches (Fig. 3) a fourth valve (280) is present in the milk channel (see channel at 265 in Fig. 3), said fourth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure (see [0054], [0065] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the milk channel of the breast pump of the ’077 Patent with a teaching of Alvarez such that a fourth valve is present in the milk channel, said fourth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Alvarez teaches that the inclusion of a valve in the milk channel provides for the passage of milk while maintaining vacuum pressure in the pressure chamber (see [0054] of Alvarez).
Claim(s) 9 – 11, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of the ’077 Patent in view of Jaeger-Waldau.
With regards to claim 9, Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein a draining channel is present between an interior of the breast shield and the pump chamber, said draining channel extending separately from the milk channel, and wherein the draining channel is able to be closed off by means of a second valve, wherein the draining channel is closed during the expressing process and opened at the end of the expressing process.
Nonetheless Jaeger-Waldau, which is within the analogous art of pumps for breast milk (see abstract), teaches a draining channel (3) is present between an interior (see at 21 in Fig. 1) of the breast shield (21) and the pump chamber (see at 20 in Fig. 1), said draining channel extending separately from the milk channel (see at 16 in Fig. 1), and wherein the draining channel is able to be closed off by means of a second valve (17) (see [0031]), wherein the draining channel is closed during the expressing process (see [0031]) and opened at the end of the expressing process (see [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of the ’077 Patent in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that a draining channel is present between an interior of the breast shield and the pump chamber, said draining channel extending separately from the milk channel, and wherein the draining channel is able to be closed off by means of a second valve, wherein the draining channel is closed during the expressing process and opened at the end of the expressing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jaeger-Waldau teaches the floater valve/second valve prevents liquid from being aspirated into the pump. Dried milk can agglutinate and block the inlet-and-outlet valves of the pump (see [0031] of Jaeger-Waldau). Furthermore, the addition of a suction line/draining channel allows for connection to a venting line with a vent that vents to the atmosphere. The venting valve lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power of the operation of a gyro valve. In fact this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
The breastpump of the ’077 Patent modified in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau will hereinafter be referred to as the breastpump of the ’077 Patent and Jaeger-Waldau.
With regards to claim 10, Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein a venting valve for venting an interior of the breast shield is present.
Nonetheless Jaeger-Waldau, which is within the analogous art of pumps for breast milk (see abstract), teaches a venting valve (6) for venting an interior (see at 21 in Fig. 1) of the breast shield (21) (see [0019], [0048], and [0049]) is present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of the ’077 Patent in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that the breast pump comprises a venting valve for venting an interior of the breast shield is present. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a venting valve lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power of the operation of a gyro valve. In fact this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
With regards to claim 11, the breastpump of the ’077 Patent and Jaeger-Waldau teaches the claimed invention of claim 9, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein a venting valve for venting the interior of the breast shield is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter.
Nonetheless Jaeger-Waldau, which is within the analogous art of pumps for breast milk (see abstract), further teaches (Fig. 1) a venting valve (6) for venting the interior (see at 21 in Fig. 1) of the breast shield (21; see [0019] and [0048-0049]) is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve (17) and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter (see abstract, [0018], and [0031-0032] wherein the venting valve 6 is closed when the electric motor switched on and when the electric motor is turned on milk accumulates in the milk outlet vale 18 and the second valve 17 is closed when the accumulating milk is not discharged sufficiently fast enough into the reservoir/the bottle via the milk outlet valve when the electric motor is off both valves are then open).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breast pump of the ’077 Patent and Jaeger-Waldau with a further teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that a venting valve for venting the interior of the breast shield is present and wherein the venting valve is able to be closed off together with the second valve and said venting valve can be opened together with the latter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Jaeger-Waldau teaches that a venting valve lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power for the operation of a gyro valve. In fact, this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
With regards to claim 14, Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein a fifth valve is present in the draining channel, said fifth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure.
Nonetheless, Jaeger-Waldau teaches (Fig. 1) a fifth valve (17) is present in the draining channel (3), said fifth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure (see [0019] and [0031-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of the ’077 Patent with a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that a fifth valve is present in the draining channel, said fifth valve opening and closing in accordance with the applied negative pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jaeger-Waldau teaches that the fifth valve or floater valve prevents liquid from being aspirated into the pump as dried milk can agglutinate and block the inlet-outlet valves of the pump (see [0031] of Jaeger-Waldau).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ’077 Patent in view of Quackenbush.
With regards to claim 12, Claim 22 of the ’077 Patent recites the claimed invention of claim 1, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein a third valve is present, said third valve maintaining a baseline negative pressure in the interior of the breast shield when the pressure of the cyclically changing negative pressure increases.
Nonetheless, Quackenbush teaches (Figs. 6 and 11) a third valve (280) is present, said third valve maintaining a baseline negative pressure in the interior (see at 212 in Fig. 6) of the breast shield (212) when the pressure of the cyclically changing negative pressure increases (see [0063], [0066-0068], and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the breastpump of the ’077 Patent with a teaching of Quackenbush such that a third valve is present, said third valve maintaining a baseline negative pressure in the interior of the breast shield when the pressure of the cyclically changing negative pressure increases. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Quackenbush teaches benefits would include for example, reducing the amount of energy required to thereafter reach maximum vacuum. The "elastic rebound" of the nipple upon release of vacuum would also be minimized. Further benefits may result from being able to control a given vacuum cycle between desired set points of actually sensed, and thereby actually applied pressures, which set points may be made numerous for more complex, yet precisely controlled suction curves. The present invention also provides comfort to the nursing mother in that the reciprocation of a breast or nipple within the breast shield is minimized (see [0013] of Quackenbush).
Claim(s) 19 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over ’077 Patent and Weber as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Jaeger-Waldau.
With regards to claim 19, the breast pump of the ’077 Patent and Weber recites the claimed invention of claim 18, however, the ’077 Patent is silent with regards to wherein the multipart module further comprises a manual actuation means for simultaneous actuation of the first valve and the second valve.
Nonetheless, Jaeger-Waldau further teaches the module further comprises a manual actuation (11; see [0042]) means for simultaneous actuation of the first (18) and second (6) valve (see the abstract, [0042], and [0047-0048] wherein the electronic control system controls the pump via the venting valve which in turn controls the level of milk within the milk outlet valve which requires a sufficient amount to open the valve slit. The valves would be simultaneously actuatable because once the pump is turned off the venting valve is actuated open which would then cause the milk outlet valve to be closed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the module of the breastpump of the ’077 Patent and Weber in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau such that the module further comprises a manual actuation means for simultaneous actuation of the first and second valve. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as Jaeger-Waldau teaches that controlling a venting valve via an electronic control system lowers the wear on an electric motor because on average the motor works with reduced speed. Moreover, the electric motor does not have to provide the power for the operation of a gyro valve. In fact, this saving is more or less compensated by the energy consumption of the electrically activated venting valve (see [0019] and [0041] of Jaeger-Waldau).
The breastpump of the ’077 Patent and Weber modified in view of a teaching of Jaeger-Waldau will hereinafter be referred to as the breastpump of the ’077 Patent, Weber, and Jaeger-Waldau.
With regards to claim 20, the breastpump of the ’077 Patent, Weber, and Jaeger-Waldau teaches the claimed invention of claim 19, and the breastpump of the ’077 Patent, Weber, and Jaeger-Waldau further teaches the adapter part (see the rejection of claim 18 above) and the actuation part (the electronic control system 11 of Jaeger-Waldau) are not detachable from one another in a non-destructive manner (see Fig. 1 which shows that the electronic control system is connected in a non-detachable manner wherein detaching would require cutting what appears to be electrical lines which would be a destructive manner see [0025] of Jaeger-Waldau).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and the claims are rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT F ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571)270-1744. 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.
/ROBERT F ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
01/08/2026