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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit” in claim 3 and “a control unit” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 6-8, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0361040 to O’Toole et al. (O’Toole).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips teaches a system comprising a breast pump unit (910, 920, 930) including a sensor (e.g. a flow sensor, per paragraph 128) for detecting a property (total volume pumped) of the breast pump unit. The examiner notes that Phillips teaches a number of other possible sensors which would also satisfy this requirement. Phillips does not teach multiple pumps or detection of either tilt or position. O’Toole teaches multiple pumps (see e.g. Fig. 21, “Pump L” and “Pump R”), and also teaches determining tilt angles thereof (see e.g. paragraph 213), which is a type of position data. O’Toole teaches that this is provided as part of a system to prevent spillage (paragraph 213). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to detect and transmit the positions of multiple pumps as taught by O’Toole in order to prevent spillage.
Regarding claim 2, Phillips teaches signal transmission indicative of pump properties (paragraph 129, e.g. “receiving data from one or more sensor(s) 1011”).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips teaches a detection unit (flow sensor) positioned on the breast pump unit (paragraph 128, “placed in one or more of chamber 8, reservoir 10…”) and configured to detect the property (pumped volume) of the breast pump.
Regarding claim 4, Phillips teaches detection of pump volume, which is tantamount to the fill level of the attached reservoir.
Regarding claim 6, Phillips teaches a network (1114) of senders and receivers for data such as the pump property measured by the flow sensor (paragraph 130, “A data bus may interconnect sensor(s) 1111, processor(s) 1112…. And communication interface(s)”).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips teaches a network (1114) of senders and receivers for data such as the pump property measured by the flow sensor (paragraph 130, “A data bus may interconnect sensor(s) 1111, processor(s) 1112…. And communication interface(s)”).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips teaches RFID tags and readers (see e.g. paragraph 15) indicative of properties such as identity of the reservoir.
Regarding claim 12, Phillips teaches a controller (1012, 1013, see paragraph 127).
Regarding claim 13, Phillips teaches at least automatic signal control (paragraphs 128-130). The examiner notes that the claim does not require both automatic and manual modes of signal control.
Regarding claim 15, Phillips teaches the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach multiple pumps or detection of either tilt or position. O’Toole teaches multiple pumps (see e.g. Fig. 21, “Pump L” and “Pump R”), and also teaches determining tilt angles thereof (see e.g. paragraph 213), which is a type of position data. O’Toole teaches that this is provided as part of a system to prevent spillage (paragraph 213). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to detect positions of multiple pumps as taught by O’Toole in order to prevent spillage. The examiner holds that configuration to be positioned at a defined angle or angles does not affect the structure of the claimed device.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of O’Toole as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0090954 to Mahaffey (Mahaffey).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips teaches the invention of claim 8, as discussed above. Phillips does not teach RFID shielding. Mahaffey teaches another RFID device generally, and particularly teaches providing shielding (32) to prevent unauthorized access to the information in a RFID chip (paragraph 14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide shielding as taught by Mahaffey to the RFID chips of Phillips in order to prevent unauthorized access thereto.
Regarding claim 16, Phillips teaches the invention of claim 8, as discussed above. Phillips does not teach RFID shielding. Mahaffey teaches another RFID device generally, and particularly teaches providing shielding (32) to prevent unauthorized access to the information in a RFID chip (paragraph 14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide shielding as taught by Mahaffey to the RFID chips of Phillips in order to prevent unauthorized access thereto.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of O’Toole as applied to claim 1 and further in view of EP 3653238 to Koninklijke Philips (the European patent hereinafter, copy provided by applicant on 28 November 2023).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above, but does not specifically teach the use of acoustic sensors. The European patent teaches another breast pump system generally, and particularly teaches the use of acoustic sensors to determine fat content (paragraph 35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use an acoustic sensor as taught by the European patent with the pump of Phillips in order to determine fat content of the breastmilk obtained thereby.
Regarding claim 11, provision of a second acoustic sensor would have provided additional information, information about a second flow line, or redundancy, and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, an acoustic sensor per the European patent is provided to the system of Phillips. The use thereof does not materially impact the structure required and therefore does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. The examiner notes that Phillips is cognizant of heart-rate measurement (paragraph 128).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that O’Toole does not teach position detection, the examiner is not persuaded. Applicant appears to imply that position detection is limited to relative position of multiple pumps. However, the claim is sufficiently broad to read on any positioning data of more than one pump. Since O’Toole teaches determining angle, which is a type of positioning data, and also teaches providing multiple pumps, the modification in view of O’Toole is sufficient to reach the scope of claim 1 as amended.
With respect to the argument that Phillips teaches away from the combination, there is no suggestion that the O’Toole solution is harmful or ineffective, merely undesirable in some circumstances. This is not sufficient to teach away from a combination with O’Toole, especially inasmuch as the combination does not involve taking the argued form of an in-bra pumping arrangement.
In view of the above, the examiner maintains that the claimed invention is unpatentable as currently drafted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 16 July 2026
Prosecution Insights