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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
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: 99 (Fig. 2). 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
Claims 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4-6, line 1 respectively: “a no milk flow condition” should be “the no milk flow condition”
Examiner notes that throughout the claimset, there appears to be some translation errors. For example, the “aggregate” seems to be a suction pump, from the descriptions in the specification. However, the term “aggregate” is not a known term in the art to signify a pump at all. Examiner requests clarification be added or terms be amended to better claim the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “volume flow assessment means” is indefinite because the phrasing and use of the term “means” implies invoking 35 U.S.C. §112(f) but the instant specification fails to define what structure or equivalents would satisfy the function of assessing volume flow. For examination purposes, the volume flow assessment means will be interpreted as either structure (like sensors) or circuitry (like a calculation in a controller). Claims 2-15 are rejected for incorporating the above limitation due to their respective dependencies on claim 1.
In claim 2, the limitation “the piston” in line 6 lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the piston will be interpreted as the “reciprocating suction generation means” introduced in this claim.
In claim 8, the limitation “the plural sensors” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the plural sensors will be interpreted as “the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors,” where the limitation “the sensors” in line 1 is interpreted as “the plurality of sensors.”
In claim 8, the limitation “flow assessment means” in line 5 is indefinite because it appears to be a newly introduced limitation and it is unclear whether or not it is related to the “volume flow assessment means” of preceding claim 1. For examination purposes, the flow assessment means of this claim will be interpreted as the same as the volume flow assessment means of claim 1.
In claim 9, the limitation “flow assessment means” in line 3 is indefinite because it appears to be a newly introduced limitation and it is unclear whether or not it is related to the “volume flow assessment means” of preceding claim 1. For examination purposes, the flow assessment means of this claim will be interpreted as the same as the volume flow assessment means of claim 1.
In claim 12, the first part of the limitation, namely “a pressure sensor adapted to generate a suction pressure signal indicative of a suction pressure generated by the aggregate,” is a duplicate of the language from claim 1. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to be distinct from that of claim 1. For examination purposes, this duplicate limitation will be interpreted as referring to the limitation of claim 1, not a newly introduced pressure sensor or suction pressure.
In claim 15, the limitations “the infrared sensor, the accelerometer, the piston sensor” in line 3 lack antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “an infrared sensor, an accelerometer, a piston sensor.”
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)(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.
Claims 1-8, 9-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Toole et al (US 2018/0361040).
Regarding claim 1, O’Toole discloses:
A breast pump (100; Fig. 1) comprising: a breast shield (7; Fig. 5) adapted to at least in part receive a breast of a lactating user (¶0082), an aggregate (83A, 83B; Fig. 7) for generating suction for expressing milk from the breast (¶0135-0136), a milk container (3) providing a reservoir for the expressed milk (¶0082), a controller (278; Fig. 27) operatively connected with the aggregate (83A, 83B) and provided for controlling the aggregate (¶0093), a pressure sensor (101; Fig. 10) adapted to generate a suction pressure signal indicative of a suction pressure generated by the aggregate (¶0169), wherein said controller (278) is operatively connected with the pressure sensor (101) (¶0152) and comprises volume flow assessment means adapted to estimate a volume flow within the pump on the basis of at least one operational parameter of the aggregate and the suction pressure signal (¶0152 – the pressure sensor 101 is able to measure the output of the pumping mechanism).
Regarding claim 2, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate (83A, 83B) comprises a reciprocating suction generating means (13 – a diaphragm), which reciprocating suction generating means (13) are moved in a reciprocating manner for generating said suction (¶0109) and wherein said volume flow assessment means are adapted to estimate the volume flow on the basis of a suction pressure difference (Δp) sensed by the pressure sensor (101) as the piston is held stationary in a suction generating position (¶0136).
Regarding claim 3, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 1, wherein said controller (278) comprises a latched pressure memory (¶0170-0171) adapted to store a latched pressure (Δp) (suction profiles, where suction pressure is a value with respect to the pump not being on and therefore no milk flowing, can be saved by the system), which latched pressure (Δp) is indicative of a pressure difference (Δp) sensed by the pressure sensor at a no milk flow condition (¶0170).
Regarding claim 4, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 3, wherein the controller (278) is adapted to assume a no milk flow condition during a stimulation phase (¶0218), in which the breast is stimulated for the expression of milk (¶0218).
Regarding claim 5, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 3, wherein the controller (278) is adapted to determine a no milk flow condition during an expression phase (¶0218), in which milk is to be expressed suction from the breast, based on a sequence of sensor signals indicating no milk flow into the reservoir (¶0218).
Regarding claim 6, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 5, wherein the controller (278) is adapted to periodically determine a no milk flow condition during one pumping session (¶0218).
Regarding claim 7, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor (¶0198 – IR sensor) being assigned to said reservoir (3), wherein the controller (278) is adapted to assess and output a signal indicative of a milk level on the basis of the volume flow assessment means and signals received from the at least one sensor (¶0198).
Regarding claim 9, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 7, further comprising an accelerometer (281; Fig. 27) and wherein the controller (278) is adapted to assess and output a signal indicative of a milk level based on information from flow assessment means (¶0259), signals received from the at least one sensor (¶0198) and signals received form the accelerometer (281).
Regarding claim 10, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate (83A, 83B) comprises reciprocating suction generating means (13 – a diaphragm), which reciprocating suction generating means (13) are moved in a reciprocating manner for generating said suction (¶0109), and wherein said volume flow assessment means are adapted to estimate the volume flow on the basis of the movement of said reciprocating suction generating means (¶0136 – movement of the diaphragm 13 indicates suction pressure, which is used to estimate volume flow).
Regarding claim 14, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 1, further comprising a user interface (5) operatively connected with said controller (278) to output information indicative of the milk level within the reservoir (3) (¶0093).
Regarding claim 15, O’Toole discloses:
The breast pump according to claim 1, wherein said controller (278) is adapted to control the aggregate (83A, 83B) based on signal of at least one of a group consisting of the infrared sensor (¶0198), the accelerometer (281; ¶0259), the piston position sensor, and the pressure sensor (101; ¶0169).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-13 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571)272-3383. 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.
/TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights