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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzbetak et al (US 2008/0171970) in view of Garbez et al (US 2018/0008758).
Regarding claim 1, Luzbetak discloses a breast milk collection device, comprising: a first shell 202/208, a second shell 206, and a membrane 100; a middle portion of the first shell provided with a milk suction passage 209 and a milk accumulation chamber 704 outwardly formed by a side wall of the milk suction passage (fig 7B), and a side end of the milk accumulation chamber provided with an opening through the first shell (fig 7B, opening which leads to 210); a fixing seat 402 disposed on the second shell (fig 9), and the second shell hermetically connected to the first shell (fig 8); the membrane having a negative pressure diaphragm 106/108/110 (fig 6A) and an annular one-way valve diaphragm 101 connected to an outer edge of the negative pressure diaphragm (fig 6A) that the negative pressure diaphragm is installed on the fixing seat with an adjustable angle (figs 8 and 9 which shows membrane 100 movement) and closely contacts the first shell to block the milk suction passage (fig 8); a negative pressure cavity formed between the negative pressure diaphragm and the second shell (figs 8 and 9, cavity membrane 100 moves in); the opening blocked by contact with the first shell by the one-way valve diaphragm (¶54); a negative pressure hole 708 disposed on the second shell (fig 8), wherein the negative pressure hole is connected to the negative pressure cavity (fig 8).
While Luzbetak substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose a milk storage cavity formed by the cooperation of the first shell and the second shell on an outside of the fixing seat; and a milk discharging hole, the milk discharging hole is connected to the milk storage cavity.
Garbez discloses a milk storage cavity formed by the cooperation of the first shell 12 and the second shell 32 on an outside of the fixing seat (fig 4); and a milk discharging hole 23 (¶24), the milk discharging hole is connected to the milk storage cavity (¶24). The reservoir system of Garbez allows it to be used discreetly by fitting within a woman’s brassiere, often under clothing (¶2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Luzbetak such that it comprises a milk storage cavity formed by the cooperation of the first shell and the second shell on an outside of the fixing seat; and a milk discharging hole, the milk discharging hole is connected to the milk storage cavity as taught by Garbez so that the device may be used discreetly by fitting within a woman’s brassiere, including under clothing.
Regarding claim 3, further comprises a plurality of reinforcing protrusions disposed on the one-way valve diaphragm (see annotated fig 1A below; fig 1B shows lower protrusion, with is the upper right arrow in the fig below, a little more distinctly).
PNG
media_image1.png
209
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first shell has a cover part (funnel portion of 202), a tube body (which forms cavity 209), and a membrane seat 502, which are integrally formed (¶49); the cover part is trumpet-shaped (fig 202); the milk suction passage is disposed from a middle portion of the cover part (fig 7B), and runs through the tube body and the membrane seat in turn (fig 7B); the milk accumulation chamber and the opening are disposed on the membrane seat (fig 7B); and the negative pressure diaphragm is in close contact with the membrane seat (fig 7B).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising: an annular groove disposed inside the fixing seat; an annular block disposed on the membrane seat, and the annular block surrounded outside the milk suction passage; and a bending portion disposed on the negative pressure diaphragm, and two sides of the bending portion are in close contact with a wall of the annular block and a wall of the annular groove respectively (fig 9, see region slightly left of region indicated as 502).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising: a convex ring disposed on the bending portion that the convex ring is in close contact with an inner wall of the annular groove (convex section of membrane which sits within bend, see fig 9).
Regarding claim 7, while Luzbetak substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose an annular sealing groove formed on the second shell; and an annular sealing ring formed by protrusions on the first shell, wherein the sealing ring is located inside the sealing groove.
Garbez discloses an annular sealing groove formed on the second shell 36 (¶28); and an annular sealing ring formed by protrusions on the first shell 38 (¶28), wherein the sealing ring is located inside the sealing groove (fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Luzbetak such that it includes an annular sealing groove formed on the second shell; and an annular sealing ring formed by protrusions on the first shell, wherein the sealing ring is located inside the sealing groove as taught by Garbez as part of the combination in claim 1 such the device may be used discreetly by fitting within a woman’s brassiere, including under clothing.
Regarding claim 8, while Luzbetak substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose a connecting part disposed on the second shell, wherein an end of the connecting part is provided with a connecting groove communicated with the milk discharging hole, and a wall surface of the connecting groove is provided with an internal thread.
Garbez discloses the milk discharging hole as being used to pour out milk by inverting the reservoir (¶48).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the milk discharging hole is open at all times and it may be desirable to plug during transportation (in the event the reservoir is inverted accidently).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Luzbetak with a connecting part (in the form of a plug) disposed on the second shell, wherein an end of the connecting part is provided with a connecting groove communicated with the milk discharging hole, and a wall surface of the connecting groove is provided with an internal thread (to allow the plug to remain in place without sufficient force to overcome the thread/groove interaction of plug and hole) as suggested by Garbez to prevent accidental discharge of milk from the reservoir during transportation.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: an annular sealing groove formed on the first shell; and an annular sealing ring formed by protrusions on the second shell, wherein the sealing ring is located inside the sealing groove (fig 9 of Luzbetak; alternatively see claim 7 above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzbetak et al (US 2008/0171970) in view of Garbez et al (US 2018/0008758) and Xu (US 2024/0207493).
Regarding claim 2, while Luzbetak substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose the second shell has a stopper protrusion on both sides of the opening, and the stopper protrusions are in contact with the one-way valve diaphragm.
Xu discloses a valve receptacle 326 (fig 1) which shows one stopper protrusion and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a mirror protrusion hidden by 322/324 in the figure as it intended to receive the valve (¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Luzbetak such that the second shell has a stopper protrusion on both sides of the opening, and the stopper protrusions are in contact with the one-way valve diaphragm as suggested by Xu to assist in maintaining the valve in the proper location.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzbetak et al (US 2008/0171970) in view of Garbez et al (US 2018/0008758) and Gossington et al (US 2025/0367352).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, while Luzbetak substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose wherein an included angle formed between an axis of the negative pressure diaphragm and a normal line of the one-way valve diaphragm is within the range of -5° to 5°, nor wherein an included angle formed between an axis of the membrane seat and a normal line of the plane where the opening is located is within the range of -5° to 5°.
Gossington discloses a breast pump where an included angle formed between an axis of the negative pressure diaphragm 172 and a normal line of the one-way valve diaphragm 162 (or 164) is within the range of -5° to 5° (negative pressure diaphragm and one-way valve diaphragm lie in same plane as per fig 3), and wherein an included angle formed between an axis of the membrane seat 119 and a normal line of the plane where the opening 122 is located is within the range of -5° to 5° (lie in same plane as per fig 3). The arrangement of Gossington is part of a design to provide efficient collection of milk while maintaining suction to a user’s nipple (¶10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Luzbetak such that an included angle formed between an axis of the negative pressure diaphragm and a normal line of the one-way valve diaphragm is within the range of -5° to 5°, and wherein an included angle formed between an axis of the membrane seat and a normal line of the plane where the opening is located is within the range of -5° to 5° as taught by Gossington to provide efficient collection of milk while maintaining suction to a user’s nipple; and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 6/29/26 are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Luzbetak discloses a barrier 100 integrated with a valve 101, they have different structural geometry and deformation mechanics than claimed. More specifically, Luzbetak discloses an asymmetrical flap (aka duckbill valve) protruding from a single bottom location of the barrier, it is not an “annual” valve diaphragm. The examiner disagrees as it is a thin sheet separating two volumes, an thus a diaphragm. It also has an annual exterior (fig 1) which seals against an opening (and is thus annular). The examiner maintains that Luzbetak discloses an annular one-way diaphragm as claimed. Applicant also argues the valve cannot be installed with an “adjustable angle” relative to the fluid exit channel. The valve pivots around its connection point to the other diaphragm as it opens and closes and as it does so its angle changes. Thus it is installed on the fixing seat with an adjustable angle as claimed.
Applicant argues Garbez does not disclose the claimed valves. The examiner does not dispute this. Garbez was not asserted as teaching the claimed valves. Primary reference Luzbetak was/is.
Applicant argues one could not convert the flap valve as in Luzbetak into a continuous annular structure as it would fundamentally alter its deformation mechanics. The examiner disagrees in-so-much as Luzbetak is already seen as teaching an annular one-way valve diaphragm as claimed. The examiner would agree Luzbetak does not disclose an annular one-way valve diaphragm that seals along its entire periphery to the fixing seat, but that is not claimed.
Applicant argues neither reference provides any motivation to configure to membrane to be installed with an adjustable angle to redistribute sealing stress. The examiner disagrees, the connection point between the diaphragms in Luzbetak is a pivot point which allows for the membrane to be installed with adjustable angle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY JAMES OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571)270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY J OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights