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 .
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 01/26/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means of an electronic controller; means of impulsive voltage; means of a first impulse voltage signal; means of a second impulse voltage signal in Claims 2, 4 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Drawings
The drawings (particularly Figures 1 and 2) are objected to because the numerals 1-7 associated with the unlabeled boxes, circles or the like representations shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels, MPEP 608.02(b) II. Applicant is required to label in words the function of said boxes, circles or the like representations, such that a reader would be appraised of their function without having to read the entire specification in order to figure it out.
For example, if according to the specification, element 3 is a vacuum pump, it is suggested that applicant labels box 3 as – vacuum pump --. The added label can go inside the corresponding box is the space is available or next to the box, if the space within the box is too small. The same applies to all the other boxes/circles with reference numerals 1-7, refer to example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings (particularly Figures 6 and 7) are objected to because the left suction bowl and right suction bowl are not labeled in these figures. It appears that the subject matter recited in claim 6 “said left suction bowl and said right suction bowl are set inside said left milk-collecting cup and said right milk-collecting cup, respectively” is shown in figures 6 and 7, however, reference numerals identifying the corresponding left and right bowls are missing.
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.
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 7-10 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 7 recites the limitation "the switching frequency" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 depend from Claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the amplitude of the pulse voltage" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said first pulse voltage signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said second pulse voltage signal" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pulse width and/or pulse frequency" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mo et al. (CN 216877389).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-3, with marked-up Figure 3 shown immediately above, Mo discloses an independently-controlled two-sided breast pump 10 comprising:
a left suction bowl (as shown in marked-up figure 3),
a right suction bowl (as shown in marked-up figure 3) and
a vacuum pump (110, as shown in marked-up figure 3),
wherein said left suction bowl communicates with said vacuum pump through a connecting tube (121/180/160) and a left three-way valve 120, so as to enable said left suction bowl to communicate with said vacuum pump or with an atmosphere (via pipe 140) by way of controlling (valve 120 controls the fluid communication between the left suction bowl and the pump or the air vent 140) said left three-way valve 120;
said right suction bowl communicates with said vacuum pump through a connecting tube (131/180/160) and a right three-way valve 130, so as to enable said right suction bowl to communicate with said vacuum pump or with an atmosphere (via pipe 140) by way of controlling (valve 130 controls the fluid communication between the right suction bowl and the pump or the air vent 150) said right three-way valve 130.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Mo discloses wherein it further comprises a master unit 100, both said left three-way valve 120 and said right three-way valve 130 are an electric control valve (battery 500 provides the electric power needed for the valves to operate), and said left three-way valve 120 and said right three-way valve 130 are independently controlled by means of an electronic controller of said master unit, respectively (by independently controlling activation of the left or right valves 120 or 130, sucking/extracting milk of the left or right breast can be independently performed).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Mo discloses wherein it further comprises a left milk-collecting cup and a right milk-collecting cup (as shown in the marked-up figure above for rejecting claim 1), said left suction bowl and said right suction bowl are set inside said left milk-collecting cup and said right milk-collecting cup, respectively.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lipsch et al. (US 2025/0065022).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 3-4, Lipsch discloses an independently-controlled two-sided breast pump (pumping assembly shown in figures 3-4) comprising:
a left suction bowl (EK1),
a right suction bowl (EK2) and
a vacuum pump (16),
wherein said left suction bowl communicates with said vacuum pump through a connecting tube (piping shown but not labeled, refer to figure 4A) and a left three-way valve 40, so as to enable said left suction bowl to communicate with said vacuum pump or with an atmosphere (labeled as ATM) by way of controlling (valve 40 controls the fluid communication between the left suction bowl EK1 and the pump 16 or atmosphere ATM; par. 108) said left three-way valve 40;
said right suction bowl EK2 communicates with said vacuum pump 16 through a connecting tube (piping shown but not labeled, refer to figure 4C) and a right three-way valve 42, so as to enable said right suction bowl to communicate with said vacuum pump or with an atmosphere (labeled as ATM) by way of controlling (valve 42 controls the fluid communication between the right suction bowl EK2 and the pump 16 or atmosphere ATM; par. 108) said right three-way valve 42.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Lipsch discloses wherein it further comprises a master unit 50, both said left three-way valve 40 and said right three-way valve 42 are an electric control valve (battery provides the electric power needed for the valves to operate), and said left three-way valve 40 and said right three-way valve 42 are independently controlled by means of an electronic controller of said master unit, respectively (by independently controlling activation of the left or right valves 40, 42, sucking/extracting milk of the left or right breast can be independently performed, refer to figures 3, 4A-4D).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Lipsch discloses wherein it further comprises a left milk-collecting cup (30 in figure 3) and a right milk-collecting cup (32 in figure 3), said left suction bowl EK1 and said right suction bowl EK2 are set inside said left milk-collecting cup and said right milk-collecting cup, respectively, refer to figures 3 and 4.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of Hesen (EP 3735994).
Mo teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except using pulse width modulation to control the value of the supply voltage. Particularly, Mo does not teach: wherein said electronic controller controls the operation of said left three-way valve and said right three-way valve by means of impulse voltage (claim 4); wherein said pulse voltage is PWM (pulse width modulation) voltage or PFM (pulse frequency modulation) voltage (claim 5).
Hesen teaches an electric breast pump similar to Mo, wherein pulse width modulation is used to control the value of the supply/impulse voltage in order for the controller to control the voltage in an easily controllable fashion (pars. 48 and 49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the electric controller of Mo with pulse width modulation, as taught by Hesen, because it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, in this case using the well-known technique of pulse width modulation, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the supply/impulse voltage in an easily controllable fashion [pars. 48 and 49 in Hesen], was an obvious extension of the prior art teachings. See KSR; MPEP 2143 (I).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipsch in view of Hesen (EP 3735994).
Lipsch teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except using pulse width modulation to control the value of the supply voltage. Particularly, Lipsch does not teach: wherein said electronic controller controls the operation of said left three-way valve and said right three-way valve by means of impulse voltage (claim 4); wherein said pulse voltage is PWM (pulse width modulation) voltage or PFM (pulse frequency modulation) voltage (claim 5).
Hesen teaches an electric breast pump similar to Lipsch, wherein pulse width modulation is used to control the value of the supply/impulse voltage in order for the controller to control the voltage in an easily controllable fashion (pars. 48 and 49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the electric controller of Lipsch with pulse width modulation, as taught by Hesen, because it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, in this case using the well-known technique of pulse width modulation, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the supply/impulse voltage in an easily controllable fashion [pars. 48 and 49 in Hesen], was an obvious extension of the prior art teachings. See KSR; MPEP 2143 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of Sutrina et al. (US 2009/0099511).
Mo teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except using a pressure sensor to detect a pressure in the left and/or right side connections. Particularly, Mo does not teach: wherein it further comprises a left pressure sensor used to detect air pressure in said left suction bowl, and a right pressure sensor used to detect air pressure in said right suction bowl, said electronic controller controls the operation of said left three-way valve according to the information of said left pressure sensor, and said electronic controller controls the operation of said right three-way valve according to the information of said right pressure sensor.
Sutrina teaches a breast pump similar to Mo, wherein a pressure sensor 460 is used to determine precise measurements to send back to a controller to more accurately control operation of the breast pump (par. 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the breast pump of Mo with a pressure sensor, as taught by Sutrina, because it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, in this case using pressure sensors to determine precise measurements of pressure, in this case, to provide a more accurate control, [par. 94 in Sutrina]], was an obvious extension of the prior art teachings. See KSR; MPEP 2143 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipsch in view of Sutrina et al. (US 2009/0099511).
Lipsch teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except using a pressure sensor to detect a pressure in the left and/or right side connections. Particularly, Lipsch does not teach: wherein it further comprises a left pressure sensor used to detect air pressure in said left suction bowl, and a right pressure sensor used to detect air pressure in said right suction bowl, said electronic controller controls the operation of said left three-way valve according to the information of said left pressure sensor, and said electronic controller controls the operation of said right three-way valve according to the information of said right pressure sensor.
Sutrina teaches a breast pump similar to Lipsch, wherein a pressure sensor 460 is used to determine precise measurements to send back to a controller to more accurately control operation of the breast pump (par. 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the breast pump of Lipsch with a pressure sensor, as taught by Sutrina, because it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, in this case using pressure sensors to determine precise measurements of pressure, in this case, to provide a more accurate control, [par. 94 in Sutrina]], was an obvious extension of the prior art teachings. See KSR; MPEP 2143 (I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741