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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/25 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“an aggregate for generating a cyclic suction profile” such as at least in claim 1
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 because the x-axis and y-axis in figure 2 should be appropriately labeled (see MPEP § 608.02.V: Drawing standards, specifically drawing standard (O): Legends “Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”). To remedy this drawing objection, Applicant could label the x-axis in fig. 2 with “time” as supported by [0032] of the current Application’s PGPUB and the y-axis in fig. 2 with “pressure” as supported by [0031] of the current Application’s PGPUB.
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 Objections
Claims 6-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 1 reads “A set of vacuum curves for a breast pump…” and should likely read “A controller with a memory having stored a set of vacuum curves for a breast pump…”. Currently, the claim language borders on a 101 issue due to the functional recitation of “for a breast pump”. A set of vacuum curves alone fails to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (see subject matter eligibility in MPEP § 2106) and would fail the subject matter eligibility test. However, the curves being “for a breast pump”, at least functionally recite the machine of a breast pump, making the claims eligible at Step 1 (See MPEP § 2106.III). However, at step 2A, even though the machine of a breast pump is recited, the claim is directed to the “set of vacuum curves”, which could be formed from a mental process and is therefore directed to an abstract idea (mental process—a person could generate a set of vacuum curves of vacuum vs time by observing data output, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). Then, at step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim essentially says “apply it”—the set of vacuum curves—to a breast pump (see MPEP § 2106.05.I.A). Therefore, Applicant is highly encouraged to make the amendment as suggested to ensure that additional elements are recited that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, rendering the claim patent eligible under 101 (see flowchart in MPEP § 2106.04.II.A.).
Each of depending claims 7-10 should be amended similarly to avoid a 101 issue
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.
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:
Claim 1 line 2: “…an aggregate for generating a cyclic suction profile according to vacuum curves…”. Therefore, claim 1 is interpreted under 112(f) according to the 3-prong test:
Prong 1: means or generic placeholder is recited— “an aggregate” is considered a generic placeholder for “means” because “an aggregate” has no specific structural meaning
Prong 2: functional language—for generating
Prong 3: not modified by other structural language in the claims—no structure is recited for how the aggregate functions in order to achieve generating a cyclic suction profile according to vacuum curves. Only the desired outcome of for generating is recited.
Upon consultation of Applicant’s disclosure under 112(f), it is unclear what structure Applicant describes to be the “aggregate”. No numeral is provided for “aggregate” (see drawing objection above). Further, none of the paragraphs of the specification further identify what the “aggregate” of the breast pump is. For example, [0027] of the current Application’s PGPUB reads:
PNG
media_image1.png
195
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, this paragraph fails to disclose the specific structure of the aggregate for generating a cyclic suction profile (Is the aggregate a pump? Is the aggregate an algorithm? Is the aggregate a stored software with programmable settings? Etc.). There does not appear to be a numeral provided on any of the figures to depict the “aggregate” and other paragraphs of the specification do not describe the aggregate in any further detail.
Thus, for purposes of examination, the examiner consulted the dictionary definition of aggregate, which reads: “formed by the collection of units or particles into a body, mass, or amount: collective: such as taking all units as a whole” (see Merriam-Webster dictionary). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “aggregate” as the breast pump system as a whole, in alignment with a broadest reasonable interpretation of the dictionary definition of aggregate. However, Applicant must remedy this issue where 112f has been invoked but the specification fails to describe the structure (see MPEP § 2181.II.A: “35 U.S.C. 112(f) states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof." "If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language.” See also the 112a and 112b rejections below).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 2 recites “…an aggregate for generating a cyclic suction profile according to vacuum curves…”. The claim limitation has invoked 112f (see claim interpretation above) but has failed to set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language (see MPEP § 2181.II.A and the 112b rejection below). Therefore, this claim limitation has also failed to satisfy the written description requirement as set forth in the MPEP:
see MPEP § 2181.II.A: “Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.”.
see MPEP § 2163.03.VI: “If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.”
Therefore, the examiner has rejected claim 1 under 112a. Due to claim dependency from claim 1, claims 2-5 are subsequently rejected under 112a written description requirement.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 2 reciting the claim limitation “…an aggregate for generating a cyclic suction profile according to vacuum curves…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see claim interpretation section above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim—see evidence as presented in the claim interpretation section above such as a lack of numeral identifying any aggregate structure in FIG. 1 and the description in [0027] of the current Application’s PGPUB. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
To reiterate, for purposes of examination, the examiner is applying an interpretation of “aggregate” to be the breast pump system as a whole, in alignment with a broadest reasonable interpretation of the dictionary definition of “aggregate”. However, the 112a/112b and 112f issues must be remedied upon reply.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Due to claim dependency, claims 2-5 are subsequently rejected under 112b.
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.
(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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourquin et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2023/0355850), hereinafter Bourquin.
Regarding claim 1, Bourquin discloses a breast pump including
a breast shield (6, see FIG. 1) adapted to at least in part receive a breast of a lactating user (see [0066]),
an aggregate for generating a cyclic suction profile (see [0068]: device generates pressure profile & [0074-0076]) according to vacuum curves for expressing milk from the breast (see [0074-0076]),
a milk container (7) providing a reservoir for the expressed milk (see [0065]),
a controller (3) for controlling the aggregate (see [0068] and [0074-0076]) wherein the controller has a memory (see [0049]: device has software and thus inherently has a memory for storing software instructions) having stored a set of at least two vacuum curves (see [0015-0018], [0049], [0091], [0107], and [0124] low energy modes, expression mode, stimulation mode, personalized program will each have an associated vacuum curve), the vacuum curves being indicative of vacuum over time (see at least FIG. 4 and [0077-0090]: Figs. 3 and 4 show pressure over time), each vacuum curve (such as shown in FIGs. 3/4) having a cycle phase (TTV&DI&TTA, see [0077-0090]) and a relaxation phase (DO), wherein vacuum curves with stronger maximum vacuum have shorter cycle phase duration (see [0046-0048]: increased dwell in time/ longer rising time/etc. ==longer cycle time with lower maximum pressure for the low energy mode. Therefore the low energy mode vacuum curve has a lesser vacuum with a longer cycle phase and the other modes have “stronger maximum vacuum” and “shorter cycle phase duration”. See also [0101-0105]: longer cycle time for the low energy mode.).
Regarding claim 2, Bourquin discloses the breast pump according to claim 1, and Bourquin further discloses wherein vacuum curves with stronger maximum vacuum have shorter vacuum curve duration (see [0046-0048]: increased dwell in time/ longer rising time/etc. ==longer cycle time with lower maximum pressure for the low energy mode. Therefore the low energy mode vacuum curve has a lesser vacuum with a longer cycle phase and the other modes have “stronger maximum vacuum” and “shorter cycle phase duration”. A shorter cycle phase will ultimately result in a shorter vacuum curve duration when the relaxation phase is kept the same. See also [0101-0105].).
Regarding claim 3, Bourquin discloses the breast pump according to claim 1, and Bourquin further discloses wherein the controller (3, see FIG. 1) orders the following sequence of phases (see [0068] & [0074-0076]: controller generates the pressure profiles of the pumps and thus “orders” the sequences as shown for the pressure profiles in at least FIG. 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
528
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- a vacuum rise phase (VRP) for decreasing the pressure from a maximum pressure to a minimum pressure being the maximum vacuum strength (see VRP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above),
- a vacuum peak phase (VPP) where the maximum vacuum strength is maintained (see VPP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above)
- a first vacuum release phase (VR1P) (see VR1P in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above),
- a vacuum hold phase (VHP) holding a hold suction pressure for a vacuum hold time (see VHP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above),
- a second vacuum release phase (VR2P) releasing the hold suction pressure to the maximum pressure (see VR2P in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above) and
- a high pressure vacuum relaxation phase (HVP) defining the end of the cycle (see HVP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above).
Regarding claim 4, Bourquin discloses the breast pump according to claim 3, and Bourquin further discloses wherein at least 70% of any variation of the cycle phase duration is provided by the variation of the vacuum hold phase (VHP) and/or the vacuum peak phase (VPP) and/or the first vacuum release phase (VR1P) (see [0046-0048] & [0101-0105]: longer cycle time due to increased “dwell in” time, which is equivalent to the VHP and VR1P of the current invention, see ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above. In the case where the cycle increase is due 100% to the dwell in time increase—see specifically [0048] & [0104], the variation of the cycle phase duration is 100% provided by the variation in the VHP and VR1P, disclosing “at least 70%” of the variation due to the claimed phases).
Regarding claim 5, Bourquin discloses the breast pump according to claim 3, and Bourquin further discloses wherein at least 70% of any variation of the vacuum curve duration is provided by the variation of the vacuum hold phase (VHP) and/or the vacuum peak phase (VPP) and/or the first vacuum release phase (VR1P) and/or the high pressure vacuum relaxation phase (HVP) (see [0046-0048] & [0101-0105]: longer cycle time due to increased “dwell in” time, which is equivalent to the VHP and VR1P of the current invention, see ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above. In the case where the cycle increase is due 100% to the dwell in time increase, the variation of the cycle phase duration is 100% provided by the variation in the VHP and VR1P, disclosing “at least 70%” of the variation due to the claimed phases).
Regarding claim 6, Bourquin discloses a set of vacuum curves (see [0015-0018], [0049], [0091], [0107], and [0124] low energy modes, expression mode, stimulation mode, personalized program will each have an associated vacuum curve) for a breast pump (see FIG.1), each vacuum curve being indicative of vacuum over time (see FIG. 4 and [0077-0090]: Figs. 3 and 4 show pressure over time), each vacuum curve having a cycle phase (TTV&DI&TTA, see [0077-0090]) and a relaxation phase (DO), wherein vacuum curves with stronger maximum vacuum have shorter cycle phase length (see [0046-0048]: increased dwell in time/ longer rising time/etc. ==longer cycle time with lower maximum pressure for the low energy mode. Therefore the low energy mode vacuum curve has a lesser vacuum with a longer cycle phase and the other modes have “stronger maximum vacuum” and “shorter cycle phase duration”. See also [0101-0105]: longer cycle time for the low energy mode.).
Regarding claim 7, Bourquin discloses the set of vacuum curves according to claim 6, and Bourquin further discloses wherein vacuum curves with stronger maximum vacuum have shorter vacuum curve length (see [0046-0048]: increased dwell in time/ longer rising time/etc. ==longer cycle time with lower maximum pressure for the low energy mode. Therefore the low energy mode vacuum curve has a lesser vacuum with a longer cycle phase and the other modes have “stronger maximum vacuum” and “shorter cycle phase duration”. A shorter cycle phase will ultimately result in a shorter vacuum curve duration when the relaxation phase is kept the same. See also [0101-0105].).
Regarding claim 8, Bourquin discloses the set of vacuum curves according to claim 6, and Bourquin further discloses wherein each vacuum curve has the following sequence of phases (see ‘Modified FIG. 4’ below and low energy vacuum curve would have the same sequences with different durations/lengths as described in at least [0046-0048] & [0101-0105])
PNG
media_image2.png
528
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- a vacuum rise phase (VRP) for decreasing the pressure from a maximum pressure to a minimum pressure being the maximum vacuum strength (see VRP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above),
- a vacuum peak phase (VPP) where the maximum vacuum strength is maintained (see VPP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above)
- a first vacuum release phase (VR1P) (see VR1P in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above),
- a vacuum hold phase (VHP) holding a hold suction pressure for a vacuum hold time (see VHP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above),
- a second vacuum release phase (VR2P) releasing the hold suction pressure to the maximum pressure (see VR2P in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above) and
- a high pressure vacuum relaxation phase (HVP) defining the end of the cycle (see HVP in ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above).
Regarding claim 9, Bourquin discloses the set of vacuum curves according to claim 8, and Bourquin further discloses wherein at least 70% of any variation of the cycle phase length is provided by the variation of the vacuum hold phase (VHP) and/or the vacuum peak phase (VPP) and/or the first vacuum release phase (VR1P) (see [0046-0048] & [0101-0105]: longer cycle time due to increased “dwell in” time, which is equivalent to the VHP and VR1P of the current invention, see ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above. In the case where the cycle increase is due 100% to the dwell in time increase—see specifically [0048] & [0104], the variation of the cycle phase duration is 100% provided by the variation in the VHP and VR1P, disclosing “at least 70%” of the variation due to the claimed phases).
Regarding claim 10, Bourquin discloses the set of vacuum curves according to claim 8, and Bourquin further discloses wherein at least 70% of any variation of the vacuum curve length is provided by the variation of the vacuum hold phase (VHP) and/or the vacuum peak phase (VPP) and/or the first vacuum release phase (VR1P) and/or the high pressure vacuum relaxation phase (HVP) (see [0046-0048] & [0101-0105]: longer cycle time due to increased “dwell in” time, which is equivalent to the VHP and VR1P of the current invention, see ‘Modified FIG. 4’ above. In the case where the cycle increase is due 100% to the dwell in time increase, the variation of the cycle phase duration is 100% provided by the variation in the VHP and VR1P, disclosing “at least 70%” of the variation due to the claimed phases).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bartlett et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0085842) teaches that vacuum curves are known in the art to be completely controlled by the device (see [0059-0060]: current breast pumps allow a user to adjust, adjust automatically via a controller, or use machine learning algorithms to adjust the cycle speed and suction pressure== “vacuum curve” as in the current invention) and thus achieve wherein vacuum curves with stronger maximum vacuum have shorter cycle phase duration (see [0060]: adjusting suction pressure would result in higher vacuum pressure shown in FIG.2 and adjusting the cycle speed changes the horizontal time axis to result in a “faster cycle”/ faster frequency).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a breast pump pressure profile comprising vacuum curves to include vacuum curves with stronger maximum vacuum having shorter cycle phase duration as taught by Bartlett for the purpose of allowing the user to adjust the cycle speed and suction pressure of the system (see [0060]), enhancing efficiency of the pump and tailoring the pump settings to each mother (see [0004-0006]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN PAIGE VOKES whose telephone number is (571)272-0198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 730AM-330PM Eastern 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, 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.
/KATHLEEN PAIGE VOKES/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights