US 11260151

I'll research this patent across the sources you've named, then reconcile against the authoritative full text I have.

Let me dig into the specific litigation history, claim text, and any 2026 appellate activity.

US 11,260,151 B2 — Verification Summary

Scope note on sources: I worked from (1) the authoritative full text of US11260151B2, and (2) live search results covering USPTO/PTAB records, federal district court dockets, and CAFC 2026 filings. I did not have direct portal access to USPTO Patent Center or the CAFC docket system; findings below are grounded in the URLs cited. I also flag one deliverable the sources did not support.

1. Bibliographic Data (high confidence — corroborated by the full text and search results)

Abstract (verbatim): "The invention is a wearable breast pump system including: a housing shaped at least in part to fit inside a bra; a piezo air‑pump fitted in the housing and forming part of a closed loop system that drives a separate, deformable diaphragm to generate negative air pressure, that diaphragm being removably mounted on a breast shield."

2. Litigation — the '151 patent was actually asserted (not just cited)

This is the most important finding, and it is well documented:

• Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑00229‑JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), filed 2023‑05‑24, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Willow asserted US 10,398,816; 10,625,005; 10,688,229; 10,434,228; 10,722,624; 11,185,619; and design patents D832,995 and D977,625. Chiaro (d/b/a Elvie) counterclaimed for infringement of US 11,260,151 — i.e., this patent. Source: Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157
• A Markman hearing was held 2024‑09‑24 before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; the court resolved 11 groups of disputed terms.
• The case was flagged STAYED and ultimately dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation — order signed 2025‑09‑11, docketed 2025‑09‑12. Source: Docket Alarm track for 2:23‑cv‑00229
• Parallel Momcozy/Shenzhen Root litigation (2:23‑cv‑00631‑KKE, W.D. Wash.) asserts Elvie's '893, '380, '381 and '454 patents — not the '151 patent. Ex parte reexaminations 90/019,410 and 90/019,679 likewise target the '893 patent.
• A 2026 ITC §337 investigation (Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1522, instituted 2026‑09‑21) asserts the '380, '292, D'344, '388 and D'993 patents — again, not the '151 patent. Source: 91 FR 60645

3. CAFC 2026 Dockets — explicit negative finding

I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket, appeal, opinion, or Rule 36 judgment involving US 11,260,151. My searches returned unrelated CAFC 2026 matters (e.g., Spero v. Mercedes‑Benz, No. 2025‑1470; Genuine Enabling Technology LLC, No. 26A60) with no connection to this patent or to the Willow/Chiaro dispute.

The procedural posture is consistent with this: the E.D. Tex. case terminated by joint stipulation dismissing with prejudice, which ordinarily ends the controversy and does not produce an appealable judgment. I cannot rule out a sealed or very recent filing that I did not surface — treat "no CAFC 2026 appeal found" as a search result, not a certainty.

One additional detail worth flagging: a PTAB document in the Willow side of the dispute records the patent owner as "Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration)." Source: PTAB real‑party‑in‑interest discussion

4. Plain‑Language Overview of the Independent Claims — ⚠️ LIMITED CONFIDENCE

I must be explicit here: I do not have verbatim independent claim text for US 11,260,151. The full text I was given is truncated before the claims section, and none of my searches returned the '151 claims (search hits surfaced claim language for siblings '816, '228, '624, '893, '380, '381 and '454 instead). Under my operating rules I will not fabricate claim language.

What can be stated with confidence is the claimed subject‑matter landscape, because the '151 specification visibly contains four distinct disclosure sections, each of which is a candidate claim family:

Section A — "The Elvie™ Breast Pump System." A wearable, in‑bra breast pump in which a housing contains a piezo air pump, battery and control electronics; the pump drives a separate deformable diaphragm forming a closed‑loop pneumatic system; the diaphragm is removably mounted on a breast shield; milk flows from the breast shield nipple tunnel directly into a detachable rigid milk container and never enters the housing. The specification defines "breast pump system," describes self‑sealing seals, a single seal at the diaphragm's outer edge, a non‑annular continuous diaphragm, centre‑of‑gravity placement below the nipple tunnel, and container dimensions (≈148 ml; 50–80 mm depth; 40–60 mm height; 100–120 mm length).

Section B — "An IR System." A liquid‑level detector: a sensing assembly of optical emitters (e.g., a three‑emitter array) equidistant from an optical receiver, aimed through a transparent window at the liquid surface; a controller computing emitted:received intensity ratios against a look‑up table in memory; an accelerometer to detect sloshing and flag unreliable readings; calibratable per‑container records. Emitter wavelengths span UV/visible/IR (10 nm–1 mm). This is claimed both as a standalone device and as a collar between a container and its lid.

Section C — "A Bra Clip." A clip/release arrangement for a maternity or nursing bra adapted to accommodate an integrated wearable pump, contrasted against fixed‑hook prior art such as U.S. Pat. No. 4,390,024 A.

Section D — "Piezo Pumps and Wearable Devices." Pump architecture claims: two piezo pumps mounted in series, or in parallel, or in a dual configuration, with heat sinks coupled to each pump, and dynamic adjustment of pump array operation in response to operating temperature (see FIGS. 40–44 and the pressure/time plots of FIGS. 42–43).

What I could not do: I could not tell you how many independent claims the '151 patent has, or which of these four aspects appears in claim 1. Verifying that requires the issued claims themselves. The authoritative way to confirm is the USPTO Patent Center or the granted‑patent PDF at the patent's Google Patents page — I would recommend pulling claim 1 directly before relying on any claim‑scope statement.

5. Bottom Line

• US 11,260,151 is a Chiaro Technology (Elvie) continuation in the 2017‑06‑15 priority family, issued 2022‑03‑01, now held by Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd following a 2025‑06‑20 assignment.
• It was asserted as Elvie's counterclaim patent in Willow Innovations v. Chiaro Technology, 2:23‑cv‑00229‑JRG (E.D. Tex.), which was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025.
• No CAFC 2026 docket involving this patent was found.
• Verbatim independent claim language was not retrievable from the sources I could reach — the family/claim overview in §4 is based on the specification's disclosed sections and should be corroborated against the issued claims before being relied upon.

I'll research litigation involving US 11,260,151. Let me run several searches.

Let me search more specifically for cases asserting this patent.

I found a key case. Let me verify details and check for other cases and the outcome.

Litigation involving US 11,260,151

I found one judicial proceeding in which US 11,260,151 has been affirmatively asserted. I did not find any other district court case, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding in which this specific patent number was asserted or challenged. Details below, with the caveats about my search at the end.

Case 1 — Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (d/b/a Elvie)

How the '151 patent fits in: Willow originally sued Elvie on seven patents — U.S. 10,398,816; 10,434,228; 10,625,005; 10,722,624; 11,185,619; and design patents D832,995 and D977,625. Elvie answered and counterclaimed, including for infringement of U.S. 11,260,151. The court's Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 157) states: "Willow alleges infringement by Elvie of U.S. Patents 10,398,816, 10,625,005, 10,688,229, 10,434,228, 10,722,624, and 11,185,619. It also alleges infringement of two design patents—U.S. Patent D832,995 and D977,625. Elvie counterclaims for infringement of U.S. Patent 11,260,151. All of the patents relate to breast pumps." The '151 patent was therefore the only patent asserted by Elvie in this case (the accused products being Willow's pump).

Sources: Docket Alarm case page for 2:23-cv-00229 (filed 5/24/2023; terminated 9/12/2025; Dkt. 176 order dismissing with prejudice); E.D. Tex. Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157 (docketalarm.com / ptacts.uspto.gov petition exhibits); PTAB petition docket excerpts listing the 8/14/2023 counterclaim (Dkt. 15).

Related proceedings reviewed but NOT asserting US 11,260,151

• Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd., W.D. Wash., No. 2:23-cv-00631-KKE (the "Momcozy v. Elvie" case, filed April 2023). Elvie's counterclaims and its LPR 120 infringement contentions there assert U.S. 11,357,893; 11,413,380; 11,813,381; and 11,806,454 — not the '151 patent. Documents in that docket do reference the prosecution history of the '151 patent (as a related family member), but the '151 patent is not among the patents Elvie asserted against Momcozy.
• Dao Health v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) asserts U.S. 7,559,915 and 8,118,772 against Elvie — unrelated to the '151 patent.

All of these patents ('893, '380, '381, '151) share the same June 15, 2017 priority family per Elvie's P.R. 120 disclosure ('893/'380/'381 entitled to priority no later than June 15, 2017), which is consistent with the '151 patent's own priority date of June 15, 2017.

Ownership note (context, not litigation)

Per the patent record, US 11,260,151 was originally assigned to Chiaro Technology Ltd and, per a reassignment recorded June 20, 2025, is now assigned to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited. The current assignee listing and the September 12, 2025 dismissal with prejudice in Willow v. Chiaro are contemporaneous in time; I have not found a document confirming a settlement or acquisition link, so I flag that as an observation rather than a verified cause.

Caveats on completeness

• I located the above from court dockets, the E.D. Tex. claim construction order, and PTAB petition exhibits surfaced via web search. I was unable to complete an exhaustive run through the Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, and CAFC docket search for this exact patent number before my research was cut short, so while I found no other case asserting US 11,260,151, I cannot represent this as an exhaustive, court-verified negative.
• I found no PTAB IPR/PGR, ITC Section 337 action, or CAFC appeal identified by the number 11,260,151. (Several PTAB petitions exist against the related Elvie patents in the same family, e.g., the '893/'380 patents, but those are different patent numbers.)
• Per your instruction, I have reported only the literal number 11,260,151; other patents in the same family that happen to appear in comparable litigation (e.g., 11,357,893) are listed above only for context and are not substitutes for the '151 patent.

If you want, I can attempt a further targeted pull from PACER/RECAP for Dkt. 15 and Dkt. 176 in 2:23-cv-00229 to confirm the exact '151 counterclaim counts and the terms of the dismissal.

I'll start by verifying the canonical (empty) list against live sources, then check the litigation/PTAB edges the prior section flagged.

Let me search specifically for AIA trials on the '151 patent and for the related family proceedings.

Let me verify the PTACTS petition records and check for any reexamination or IPR naming the '151 specifically.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 11,260,151 B2 ("Breast pump system")

Canonical source: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this prompt. It states that the USPTO Open Data Portal API returned no AIA trial proceedings for US 11,260,151 as of the most recent ingest. I treated that as the controlling list and then searched live to see whether anything had been filed or indexed since. The structured list is confirmed — and I am flagging one high-risk false positive below.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,260,151: 0. There are no inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, or covered business method reviews against this patent — no institution decisions, no fee-denied or denied petitions, no settlements, no Final Written Decisions, and no Federal Circuit appeals. The defensive posture this creates is not "hardened patent" and not "claims are dead": it is "totally untested." No claim of the '151 patent has ever been construed by the Board (or, on the record I can see, by any court), and the patent carries no IPR estoppel shield that a defendant can exploit — but equally, no claim has been canceled, so every claim is still live against you. A defendant must litigate validity from scratch or file first.

Because there is nothing to report proceeding-by-proceeding, I have substituted a family-intelligence section that documents the AIA activity on the '151's siblings. This matters practically: it is the activity a defendant will almost certainly be shown by opposing counsel (or will find herself in a first-pass search), and it is not about this patent.

⚠️ Digit-transposition false positive — read this before relying on any search hit. Repeated web searches for "11,260,151" surface a PTACTS document captioned "Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,261,151." That is US 11,261,151 — a (Z)-endoxifen polymorph/breast-disorder treatment patent owned by a pharma patentee, not Chiaro, not Willow, not a breast pump. The middle digits are transposed (…260… vs …261…). That petition has zero relevance here. It is exactly the kind of hit that gets dropped into a clearance memo as "there's an IPR on your patent." There is not.

Family AIA activity (NOT proceedings on US 11,260,151)

These are on different patents in the same 2017-06-15 Chiaro/O'Toole priority family. They are included only as background intelligence and must not be cited as a challenge to the '151.

IPR2025-00554 — Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco Limited / Willow Innovations, Inc.

(Patent 11,806,454 B2 — a sibling continuation, not the '151)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-03-06 (notice of filing date accorded 2025-04-15)
• Status: Trial Instituted (2025-10-14)
• Judge panel: Meredith C. Petravick, Grace Karaffa Obermann, Barry L. Grossman
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness over Furrer (US 10,149,929), Alvarez (US 2015/0283311), Pollen (US 2015/0217035), Weniger (US 2004/0087898), Rigert (US 2018/0021491), Park (WO 2016/186452 / certified translation), Silver (US 2011/0071466), Kasting, Luzbetak, Thompson, Chang, Lundy, Myers; challenged claims 17–19 and 21–33.
• Institution decision: Instituted on all challenged claims and all grounds, 2025-10-14. The Board rejected Patent Owner's §§ 325(d)/314(a) discretionary-denial request, which the Acting Director had already denied and referred to the Board on 2025-07-17 (the Acting Director noted the challenged patents "have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2023)," that "early challenges favor robust, predictable patent rights," and that the parallel W.D. Wash. litigation was stayed). Sources: Institution Decision (Paper 10) · Director Discretionary Decision Refer (Paper 9)
• Final Written Decision: none issued as of 2026-09-28. Statutory FWD deadline ≈ 2026-10-14 (one year from institution, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)); extension to six months is available for good cause.
• Settlement / termination: none. Live. The petitioner's exhibit list includes a "Patent Owner Suggestion of Bankruptcy" (EX1027), and a separate PTAB filing records the Chiaro-side patent owner as "Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration)" — i.e., insolvency, not settlement, is shaping this docket.
• Appeal: none to date (FWD not yet issued).
• Defensive value for the '151: none directly. But note the real-party-in-interest roster: Shenzhen Root named Hong Kong Lute Technology, Shenzhen Conglin E-Commerce, Shenzhen Jinruihang Technology, Shenzhen Xitao Network Technology, ROOT Technology Ltd., and Shenzhen Lute Innovation/Lutejiacheng as RPIs. If any of those entities (or Momcozy-affiliated entities) is your co-defendant or supplier, the privy analysis under § 315(e)(2) becomes live — though only as to the '454 patent, never the '151.

IPR2025-00560 — Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco Limited

(Patent 11,813,381 B2 — sibling, not the '151)

• Same petitioner, same counsel (Fish & Richardson for petitioner; Greenberg Traurig for patent owner), same Director referral order, same discretionary-denial outcome. The Director's Paper 9 covers both IPR2025-00554 and IPR2025-00560 and expressly states the petitions "are referred to the Board to handle the cases in the normal course."

Ex parte reexaminations 90/019,410 and 90/019,679 — BREAST PUMP SYSTEM

(Patent 11,357,893 B2 — sibling, not the '151)

• Type: Ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. § 302 (a Central Reexamination Unit proceeding, not an AIA trial — it does not appear in PTAB trial statistics and carries no § 315(e) trial estoppel).
• Status: on file at the USPTO. Patent owner of record in the file: Chiaro Technology Limited; chain of title runs Reel 058057/0084 (inventors → Chiaro) and Reel 071402/0877 (Chiaro → Willow Blossom Holdco Limited), per the § 3.73(c) statement signed 2025-06-25. Source: 90/019,679 file record
• Why it matters: reexamination of the '893 is the closest thing in the family to a validity ruling, and — like the IPRs — it is not the '151. Critically, ex parte reexam is available to any requester, including you, at any time, and it does not trigger § 315(e)(2) estoppel against you in district court. That makes reexam a structurally different (and often overlooked) lever against the '151.

District-court / ITC assertion of the '151 itself (non-PTAB, for posture only)

• Willow Innovations, Inc. v. Chiaro Technology, Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG (E.D. Tex.): Willow asserted its own patents; Chiaro counterclaimed on US 11,260,151. Claim construction order after the 2024-09-24 Markman hearing resolved 11 groups of terms — but the '151 terms do not appear to have been among the construction disputes (the order's disputed terms trace the '816/'619 and Willow-side patents). Case dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation (order 2025-09-11). Source: Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 157
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1522 (instituted 2026-09-21) asserts US 11,660,380; 12,370,292; D1,053,344; 11,813,388; D1,031,993 — the '151 is not among the asserted patents.
• Restatement, not controversy: because the '151 issue was resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice, there is no appealable judgment and hence no CAFC appeal. This is consistent with the earlier finding of no Federal Circuit 2026 docket involving this patent.

Strategic summary

Claim-status map. For US 11,260,151 there is exactly one category: untested — 100% of claims. No claim has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed in an AIA proceeding, because none has been filed. I cannot give you a canceled-vs-sustained list and will not manufacture one. I also reiterate the limitation flagged in the earlier section: the authoritative claim text of the '151 was not retrievable from the sources available to me (the supplied full text truncates before the claims; search hits returned claim language for siblings '816, '228, '624, '893, '380, '381 and '454 instead). Before anyone relies on "claim 1 of the '151 recites…," pull the granted claims from USPTO Patent Center. The specification discloses four candidate claim families — (A) the in-bra wearable pump with piezo pump/closed-loop diaphragm, (B) the IR/optical liquid-level sensing assembly including the accelerometer slosh-detection and collar embodiments, (C) the bra clip, and (D) series/parallel/dual piezo pump and heat-sink configurations — but which of these actually appears in an independent claim is unverified.

Estoppel landscape — favorable to you, unusually so. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to grounds the petitioner "raised or reasonably could have raised" as to the patent in the IPR. Since the '151 has never been in an IPR, no IPR estoppel bars any invalidity ground against any claim of the '151. The Shenzhen Root IPRs ('454, '381) and the '893 reexaminations create estoppel only as to those patents, and reexamination creates no § 315(e)(2) estoppel at all. Practically, every § 102/§ 103 ground you can build — including art already before the Office on the siblings — remains available to you against the '151 in district court. The flip side of that coin: the Office has already put a lot of wearable-breast-pump art on the record in the family proceedings (Khalil/US 2013/0023821, Furrer, Alvarez, Pollen, Weniger, Rigert, Park, Silver, Kasting, Luzbetak, Thompson, Chang, Lundy, Myers, WhisperWear). If you file, expect the patent owner to pre-empt you with a § 325(d) argument that your art is "the same or substantially the same" as art already considered — the Director has twice now rejected that argument in this family (Paper 9, 2025-07-17), but that reasoning was driven by the patents being young (issued 2023) and the parallel case being stayed, neither of which is true of a 2022-issued patent in a live case.

Pattern signals. (1) One petitioner, serial filings: Shenzhen Root filed a coordinated multi-patent campaign against the Willow Blossom portfolio (at least IPR2025-00554 and IPR2025-00560), stipulating under Sotera on 2025-05-14 to narrow its district-court invalidity case — the classic well-funded, multi-front challenger profile. (2) No defensive aggregator: I found no Unified Patents or RPX-funded petition in this chain; the challenges are competitor-driven. (3) The patent owner is not appealing aggressively — there are no FWDs to appeal yet, and the earlier finding of no 2026 CAFC activity involving the '151 stands. (4) Ownership and solvency are the real wildcards: the '151 moved from an entity described in PTAB papers as Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration) to Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd (assignment 2025-06-20), and a "Suggestion of Bankruptcy" sits in the IPR2025-00554 exhibit list. The '151 is now held by the same holder that is asserting the '380/'292/'388/designs at the ITC.

The two-ended read. The absence of IPRs is not exoneration — it is a gap. The '151 was asserted only as a counterclaim in a case that died by stipulation, so it never accumulated the adversarial exposure that draws petitions. Well-asserted patents in this family have attracted IPRs and reexams within roughly 18–24 months of assertion; the '151 has simply not been asserted against anyone with the incentive to file. If you are now receiving assertion letters on the '151, you are likely the first party to have that incentive.

Recommended next steps

1. State the negative in your validity opinion up front, and cite the canonical list. There are no AIA trials on US 11,260,151. Do not let a search hit for US 11,261,151 (endoxifen — a different patent with transposed digits, PTACTS petition 1557639) contaminate the file.
2. Pull the granted claims before anything else. Get the '151 claim set from USPTO Patent Center (the Google Patents page and the truncated full text I hold stop short of the claims). Map each independent claim to Sections A–D of the specification to decide which claim families you actually face. Until that is done, no claim-charting, no invalidity contentions, no § 112 analysis is defensible.
3. Choose the forum now, because the windows differ.
   • IPR: available to you any time. Statutory FWD deadline is one year from institution (extendable six months). § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent — the E.D. Tex. dismissal with prejudice does not serve you, so the clock has not started unless you have been newly served.
   • PGR: not available. The '151 issued 2022-03-01, so the 9-month post-grant window closed on or about 2022-12-01.
   • CBM: not available. The AIA § 18 CBM program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16, and a breast pump is not a "financial product or service" in any event.
   • Ex parte reexamination: available to anyone, at any time, and it generates no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against you. Given the volume of breast-pump art already on the record in the sibling reexams, this is a genuinely under-used option here.
4. If a petition is filed by anyone, calendar the milestones. For any new IPR, watch the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (3 months), the § 314(b) institution deadline (6 months from the Notice of Filing Date Accorded), the § 316(a)(11) FWD deadline (12 months from institution), and the Oral Hearing (typically 7–8 months post-institution). If you are a RPI or privy of Shenzhen Root, run the § 315(e)(2) analysis now — it will bite on the '454 and '381, never on the '151.
5. Monitor the RPIs and the ITC. Track IPR2025-00554's FWD (due ≈ 2026-10-14) and any expansion of Inv. No. 337-TA-1522. If Willow Blossom extends that ITC action to the '151, an IPR clock and a § 337 forum question arise simultaneously — and the '151's complete lack of PTAB history means you will be briefing priority, written description for the 2017-06-15 GB filings, and the Section A–D claim-family question for the first time ever.

Confidence caveats (stated plainly): (i) The zero-proceeding finding rests on the structured ODP list plus confirming searches; a petition filed very recently and not yet indexed cannot be excluded, so treat this as "no indexed proceedings," not "no filing exists." (ii) The claim-granularity output the requested format calls for is not achievable for this patent — there is no FWD, so there are no claim numbers to quote exactly, and I have not invented any. (iii) A 2026-09-25 secondary aggregator article reported a PTAB decision invalidating "all claims challenged by Shenzhen Root… in the patent associated with the Willow Blossom wearable breast pump"; on its face that describes the '454/'381 IPRs, not the '151, and the source is a low-reliability blog — I am flagging it rather than relying on it.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 11260151, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center records and cross-references.

Key lead on reel/frame numbers found. Let me verify whether those reels apply to the '151 patent specifically, and find the correspondents.

Let me pin down the specific reel/frame for the '151 patent's Willow assignment and confirm the correspondent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,260,151 B2 ("Breast pump system")

Source limitation, stated up front: I do not have direct portal access to Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or Patent Center. Findings below are grounded in (a) the legal-events records surfaced at the patent's Google Patents page, and (b) USPTO filings — PTAB mandatory notices and 37 CFR 3.73(b) statements in the family's reexaminations — that recite the chain of title with explicit reel/frame citations. Where I could only corroborate a reel/frame via a sibling patent rather than the '151's own record, I say so. I found no SEC filings to cross-reference: both Chiaro Technology Limited and Willow Innovations, Inc. are privately held, so the 10-K/8-K leg of the brief yields nothing.

Inventors

Basis and caveats. These three are the sole named inventors on the '151, the GB priority filings (GB 1709564.7, GB 1709561.3, GB 1709566.2, all 2017‑06‑15) and the 2018 follow-on GB 1809036.5. They appear as the assignors in the recorded inventor→Chiaro assignment, which is the concrete evidence for their employer relationship (Google Patents legal events, 2021‑11‑09; and the family chain-of-title statement citing Reel 058057/Frame 0084). The specification is branded "The Elvie™ Breast Pump System," so the product-owner is unambiguous.

Pattern note — no fire-sale precursor found. The requested unusual-pattern check (all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing as a precursor to a portfolio sale) is not supported. The transfer of title here was delayed, not accelerated: the inventors' assignment was recorded 2021‑11‑09, roughly 4.4 years after the 2017‑06‑15 priority filings and about 8 months after this continuation was filed on 2021‑03‑16. That is a title-cleanup timing pattern (confirming the chain shortly after a new continuation is filed), not an abandonment pattern. I have no evidence of any of the three inventors leaving Chiaro/Elvie, and I will not infer it. I also note that later family filings (e.g. EP 4176909) name a much broader inventor set — Poole, Ross, Levy, Coggins, Pestana, et al. — but that is a different application and should not be conflated with the '151 inventorship.

Original assignee

Chiaro Technology Limited, Bristol, United Kingdom, trading as Elvie (company no. referencing a UK private limited company; entity was later "Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration)").

• Named on the issued patent? Yes. The '151 granted to Chiaro Technology Limited on 2022‑03‑01; the original assignment to Chiaro was recorded 2021‑11‑09.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, unambiguously. The patent's own specification is titled "Section A — The Elvie™ Breast Pump System" and describes the wearable in-bra pump sold commercially as the Elvie Pump, with center-of-gravity figures, container volumes (~148 ml / 5 fl oz) and the Elvie app screenshots. This is a commercialized, shipped product, not a paper patent.
• Primary line of business. Femtech hardware — wearable breast pumps, the Elvie Trainer (pelvic floor), and related maternal-health devices. It was a venture-funded scale-up, not a licensing vehicle.
• Current status. Insolvent — sold out of UK administration. Lindsay Hallam, Matthew Boyd Callaghan and Oliver Wright of FTI Consulting were appointed administrators on 2025‑03‑28, and on appointment completed a sale of substantially all of the business and assets to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited, transferring all 178 employees. The PTAB docket in the sibling IPRs records "Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration)" as a real party-in-interest and notes it "has retained claims to ongoing U.S. litigation." Chiaro is therefore a failed operating company whose patent estate was liquidated through an insolvency process — the single most important fact in this chain.

Assignment timeline

Two assignments are recorded against the '151. Both are corroborated by the patent's Google Patents legal-events record; the reel/frame identifiers are corroborated by the family's PTAB/reexam chain-of-title statements.

⚠️ Contradiction flag vs. the earlier-generated section. The prior section stated flatly that the original assignment was "recorded 2021‑11‑09, reel 058057/0084" for this patent. That is directionally correct and consistent with the family record, but I could only corroborate Reel 058057/Frame 0084 as the inventors→Chiaro link cited in the sibling '893 reexamination (90/19,679), not in a record I pulled for the '151 itself. Treat both reel/frame numbers below as family-chain corroborated, '151-record unverified.

• Execution date not stated on the record / recorded 2021‑11‑09 — Reel 058057/0084 (family chain-of-title citation; see flag above)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Andrew Carr; Adam Rollo; Jonathan O'Toole (individual inventors)
  • Assignee: Chiaro Technology Limited
  • Correspondent: not determinable from the sources I could reach — flagging as an open item; this is the recording I could not attribute to a named attorney.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment perfecting Chiaro's title; recorded ~4.4 years post-priority and ~8 months after this continuation was filed — routine title cleanup, not a transfer.

• 2025‑06‑20 (executed) / recorded June 2025 — Reel 071402/0877 (family chain-of-title citation in 90/19,679; the sibling '893 was recorded by Greenberg Traurig on 2025‑06‑12, and the §3.73(b) statement executed 2025‑06‑25)

  • Conveyance: Assignment — transfer of substantially all business and assets pursuant to a UK administration sale
  • Assignor: Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration)
  • Assignee: Willow Blossom Holdco Limited (wholly owned subsidiary of Willow Innovations, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: Michael Dixon, Reg. No. 46,665, Greenberg Traurig, LLP (signatory on the 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement dated 2025‑06‑25). Recurrence flag: Greenberg Traurig is the same firm that recorded the parallel Willow acquisition for the sibling '893 (June 2025) and appears across the Willow Blossom patent family as PTAB counsel (Heath J. Briggs, Reg. No. 54,919, as lead). This is centralized in-house IP handling by an operating-company group, not shell-entity rotation — a single firm handling one acquirer's whole portfolio is the opposite of the tell the brief describes.
  • Context: Bankruptcy/insolvency fire-sale — the UK-administration equivalent of a Chapter 11 §363 asset sale.

No further assignments (security interests, releases, mergers, change-of-name, licenses) appear on the record. No "Change of Name" record exists despite the Elvie trade-name, which is consistent with the entity remaining "Chiaro Technology Limited" throughout.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11260151
    2017 : GB priority filings by three inventors
    2021 : US continuation filed
         : Inventors assign all rights to Chiaro
    2022 : Patent issued 1 March
    2025 : Chiaro enters UK administration
         : Assets sold to Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present.
The transfer moved the patent from an operating company (Chiaro/Elvie) to an entity whose name suffix ("Holdco") and registered address (9th Floor, 107 Cheapside, London EC2V 6DN — a serviced/registered-office address) superficially match the tell. But the record rebuts the inference: Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Willow Innovations, Inc., and it acquired the entire operating business — all 178 employees, the Elvie brand, and continuing customer support — not a bare patent portfolio. Multiple PTAB filings describe it as "a wholly owned subsidiary of Willow Innovations, Inc." and the FTI announcement confirms the business (not just IP) transferred. Per the brief's own rule, naming alone is not a finding; here the corroborating evidence points the other way.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present.
The chain contains no Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entity. The current assignee, Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd, is a subsidiary of an operating breast-pump manufacturer (Willow Innovations, Inc.), not a member of any of those families.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear (one link unidentified).
Only one of the two recordings has a determinable correspondent: Michael Dixon, Reg. No. 46,665, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, on Reel 071402/0877 (2025). A single appearance is expressly not a finding under the brief's standard. Critically, the other link — the 2021‑11‑09 inventor assignment at Reel 058057/0084 — has no correspondent I could attribute, so a true recurrence test cannot be completed. What can be said: the firm that recurs across the Willow Blossom estate (Greenberg Traurig, and in-house counsel Earl Bright of Willow Innovations) is a large full-service firm doing operating-company work, not a known NPE filing mill. I am marking this unclear on record-completeness grounds only, with no adverse inference.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.
Two assignments, ~3.6 years apart (2021‑11‑09 → 2025‑06), no chained LLC hopscotch, no shared-principal relay, no <24-month cascade. The chain is only two links deep end-to-end.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present (temporal inverse).
The acquisition post-dates the litigation rather than preceding it. Willow Innovations first sued Chiaro on 2023‑05‑24 (No. 2:23‑cv‑00229‑JRG, E.D. Tex.); Shenzhen Root filed IPRs against the family in May 2024 and February 2025; administration and the asset sale came 2025‑03‑28. Nothing here was arranged to beat a filing date. Note the notable irony: the '151 was asserted by Chiaro as its counterclaim in Willow Innovations v. Chiaro Technology, so Willow has now acquired the very patent that was being asserted against it.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT.
This is the one strong signal, and it is well evidenced: Chiaro Technology Limited entered UK administration on 2025‑03‑28 (administrators Hallam, Boyd Callaghan and Wright of FTI Consulting), with a same-day sale of substantially all business and assets to Willow Blossom Holdco Limited. The '151 transfer at Reel 071402/0877 (executed 2025‑06‑20) is that sale. PTAB records confirm "Chiaro Technology Limited (in Administration)" as an RPI and state the change was "due to the United Kingdom equivalent of bankruptcy." Important qualifier: a bankruptcy sale is a distress signal; it is not, by itself, an NPE signal. Here the buyer is a market competitor acquiring a going concern.

7. Privateering — Not present.
Privateering requires an operating company to park patents with a third-party NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here the flow is the reverse: a failed operating company's assets were bought by a wholly owned captive subsidiary of a competing operating company. The acquirer litigates in its own name and through its own in-house and outside counsel — vertical consolidation in the same market, not off-balance-sheet assertion.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present.
The chain terminates at Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd / Willow Innovations, Inc. There is no RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN link. The patent has not been neutralized; it is held by an active commercial competitor and is being defended in IPRs (Willow Blossom as patent owner in IPR2025‑00554 and IPR2025‑00560) and asserted in parallel campaigns against Shenzhen Root/Momcozy.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is a two-link chain — inventors → Chiaro Technology Ltd (2021‑11‑09, Reel 058057/0084) → Willow Blossom Holdco Ltd (executed 2025‑06‑20, Reel 071402/0877) — in which the terminal assignee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Willow Innovations, Inc., a company that ships a competing wearable breast pump and litigates against actual market rivals. The only signal that fires is #6, the UK-administration fire-sale of 2025‑03‑28, and that is a distress signal about the seller (Chiaro, which had been in IPR and district-court combat with Willow since 2023 and Shenzhen Root since 2024), not a troll signal about the buyer. The one signal that looks superficially adverse — the "Holdco" name and Cheapside registered-office address — is affirmatively rebutted by record evidence of a full going-concern purchase including 178 employees. The single biggest gap in the record is the unidentified correspondent on the 2021 recording; that should be pulled directly from Assignment Center before this chain is treated as fully verified.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 11260151; also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). The patent's own legal-events record is at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11260151B2](/patent/US11260151B2)/en.

I'll research the prior art cited against US 11,260,151. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me pull the specific citation lists for US 11,260,151 itself.

Let me isolate the citation list that belongs specifically to US 11,260,151.

Prior Art Cited Against / By US 11,260,151 B2

0. Source note and scope limitation (read this first)

I ran targeted searches against Google Patents citation data for the number 11,260,151 and for related family members. Two honest limitations:

1. I did not have direct USPTO Patent Center or patentimages-PDF access for the front-page "(56) References Cited" block of the '151 patent. What I retrieved is the Google Patents "Patent Citations" table associated with US 11,260,151 B2 and its family. Google Patents merges examiner citations and applicant disclosures and does not always distinguish them, so treat the list as "documents of record/associated," not as a certified examiner-only list.
2. I still do not have the verbatim claim set of US 11,260,151. As flagged in the earlier-generated section, the text I hold is truncated before the claims. Under my operating rules I will not invent claim numbers or claim text. Accordingly, the §102 column below maps each reference to the claim family it can attack, and I identify precisely where that mapping is a judgment call rather than a verified claim-by-claim reading. Statutorily, §102 anticipation requires that a single reference disclose every element of the claim as arranged; a reference "relevant to" a family is not thereby anticipatory.

A contradiction to flag: one retrieved snippet renders the 17-row citation table under the page title "Methods, systems and devices for expressing breastmilk" (the URL was patents.google.com/patent/US12097312B2, a different patent). Sixteen of the seventeen rows are unambiguously breast-pump references and the header format matches Google Patents' citation table, so I report them as the '151 citation set — but I cannot fully exclude that a row or two bled in from an adjacent table. The 17th row is truncated mid-string ("US11260151B2 (en) | 20…") and I could not resolve it. Treat row 17 as unidentified.

1. Confirmation of the target

Because the effective filing date is 2017-06-15 — after the AIA's 2013-03-16 changeover — the governing provision is 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/(a)(2). Every reference in §2 below published before 2017-06-15, so each is prima facie prior art as of that date (none qualifies for the §102(b)(1) grace-period exception, since the inventors and the publishers differ).

2. Patent citations associated with US 11,260,151 B2

How the §102 mapping should be read

The list is dominated by Section-A art (wearable/hands-free/concealable breast pumps with a reservoir: refs 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16). Four references (2, 9, 11, 13) go to fluid transfer, massage, vacuum control, and reservoir monitoring. Notably, none of the cited references is an optical liquid-level detector, and none is a piezo-pump architecture reference — which is consistent with the '151 specification's Section B (IR sensing) and Section D (piezo pumps) being the differentiating disclosure, and suggests those families were not the subject of §102 rejections on these references.

Most probable anticipation candidates, in order, for Section-A claims: US 2016/0158424 A1 (#15), US 2016/0325031 A1 (#16), US 8,118,772 B2 (#10), US 2014/0378946 A1 (#14), US 6,440,100 B1 (#3).

3. Non-patent citations of record

The '151 family record shows Non-Patent Citations (2), one of which is an "Extended European Search Report for EP Application No. …" (the remaining text was truncated in the source). An EESR is a search report — it is not itself prior art, but it identifies the EPO examiner's X/Y references, which would be the operative §102/§103 art in the corresponding EP member. I could not retrieve the second NPL item or the EESR's cited documents.

The sibling US 11,357,893 B2 (Chiaro, same 2017-06-15 priority, same specification, examiner Nathan R. Price, Sterne Kessler) lists as NPL the "Whisper Wear Hands-Free Breast Pump, Model WWPMP01, User Guide, pp. 1–20, distributed with product at least as early as 2007" — a printed publication that, if it also appears in the '151 file, is a §102(a)(1) printed-publication candidate against hands-free wearable pump claims. I have not verified that this NPL is of record in the '151 file specifically — it is confirmed for the '893 only.

4. Prior art embedded in the '151 specification itself ("cited in the application")

These are not in the citation table but are expressly relied on and characterized in the '151 description. Under §102 they are usable printed publications, and the applicant's own characterization is an admission about their disclosure:

5. Caveats you should carry forward

• Row 17 is unresolved, and row 1 (DE 382211 C) could not be verified and is facially implausible as breast-pump art; one or both may be artifacts of the table I scraped.
• I did not obtain the '151's verbatim "References Cited" front-page block from USPTO, nor the examiner's §102/§103 rejections. The table in §2 is Google Patents-sourced and mixes applicant- and examiner-supplied citations.
• I do not have the '151 claims. The family-level §102 mapping above is accordingly about subject matter, not claim elements. Before relying on any "Reference X anticipates claim Y" statement, pull claim 1 (and each independent claim) from USPTO Patent Center or the granted-PDF and re-run the element-by-element comparison.
• References asserted against sibling patents in PTAB/litigation — e.g., Khalil US 2013/0023821 A1 (anticipation ground against US 11,357,893), and Furrer / Alvarez / Pollen / Weniger (grounds against US 11,806,454) — are not citations of the '151 and must not be substituted for them. They are, however, the references most likely to be invoked if the '151 is ever challenged, given the shared specification.

6. Bottom line

For US 11,260,151 B2, the citation record is dominated by wearable/hands-free breast-pump art. The five references I would rank as most relevant prior art under §102 are:

1. US 2016/0158424 A1 (Metal Industries R&D Centre) — hidden, wearable breast-milk pumping system.
2. US 2016/0325031 A1 (Miller, Jared) — integrated breast pump system.
3. US 8,118,772 B2 (Dao) — self-contained breast pump with integral reservoir.
4. US 2014/0378946 A1 (DS Labs) — concealable in-bra expression apparatus.
5. US 2008/0275386 A1 (Whisper Wear) — hands-free wearable pump with reciprocating drive (reinforced by the Whisper Wear user-guide printed publication cited in the sibling's file).

None of the cited patent documents addresses the piezo-pump or IR liquid-level-sensing disclosures that distinguish the '151 specification — which is itself the strongest indicator that §102 exposure, if any, lies in the broad "self-contained in-bra wearable pump" claims rather than in the sensing and pump-architecture families.

I'll gather the prior-art landscape for this patent before analyzing obviousness.

Let me pull the specific prior-art references and the claim text.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,260,151 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Built on prior sections. This analysis picks up where the earlier "Patent summary" (§4, "Plain‑Language Overview of the Independent Claims") and "Litigation summary" left off. I do not repeat the bibliographic table, the Willow Innovations v. Chiaro Technology docket history, or the four‑section (A–D) map of the specification.

0. One flag first — a partial resolution of the prior section's claim‑text gap

The earlier section stated, correctly at the time, that verbatim claim 1 of the '151 patent was not retrievable, and warned that §4 was built from the specification's disclosed sections. My searches confirm that the '151's own claim text is still not surfacing, but they do now surface the issued claim text of three sibling patents in the identical 2021‑03‑16 continuation set (17/203,109='151; 17/203,050='893; 17/203,292='381; 17/203,355… etc.), all claiming priority to the same 2017‑06‑15 GB filings. That is useful because the siblings share the '151's specification almost verbatim.

This is a correction‑in‑part to the previous section, not a contradiction: the family claims cluster tightly around Section A (the in‑bra wearable pump), with the "self‑contained, in‑bra wearable device… diaphragm… air pump… breast flange and nipple tunnel… milk container" format recurring as claim 1 across the set. See the '381 claim listing at PTAB petition 1557376 and the '893 claim chart in Shenzhen Root v. Chiaro, W.D. Wash. 2:23‑cv‑00631‑KKE, Dkt. 121.

I still do not have the '151's own claims. Accordingly, every ground below is stated against claim families, and each is expressly labelled by the level of confidence in the mapping. Nothing below should be quoted as "claim 1 of the '151 recites…".

1. The legal framework applied

• Prior art must predate the effective filing date of 2017‑06‑15 (the GB priority date; the '151 was filed 2021‑03‑16 as a continuation in the 16/009,547 chain, so the 2017 date governs absent a priority challenge). Every reference I rely on below predates 2017.
• AIA § 103 requires: (a) a reference or combination within § 102; (b) a POSITA; (c) an articulated motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP §§ 2143, 2144.01, 2144.03 (substitution of known elements), 2144.04 (design incentives).
• Because the '151's specification is an admitted‑prior‑art document (it describes and criticises the field, ostensibly as the applicant saw it), several references are applicant admissions and require no independent § 102 proof.

2. Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

A POSITA here would be a mechanical/biomedical design engineer (or a small multi‑disciplinary team) with ~3–5 years in consumer medical devices, including fluid handling, diaphragm/valve design, and small‑scale pump integration, and familiarity with commercially available piezoelectric micropumps. The '151 specification itself supplies the objective baseline: it treats the TTP Ventus piezo pump's "> 400 mBar (40 kPa) stall pressure and 1.5 litres per minute free flow" as a known, off‑the‑shelf design input.

3. The prior‑art record actually available for this patent

3.1 Admitted in the '151 specification itself (strongest evidence; no § 102 proof needed)

3.2 In the patent's citation record (Google Patents)

Publication/patent citation list for the '151 family includes: US 5,954,690 (Medela, alternating suction breast pump); US 6,440,100 and US 2003/0191433 (Prentiss, concealed hands‑free pumping/storage); US 2004/0133151 (Watanabe, milking device); US 7,789,865 (Myers, breast cup with internal vacuum chamber, hands‑free); US 2003/0236491 (Clute); US 2005/0234370 (Puronyx, massaging/expressing/containment); US 8,118,772 (Stella Dao, self‑contained breast milk reservoir); US 2008/0009815 (Grabenkort, vacuum control system for a breast pump); US 2008/0275386 (Whisper Wear, hands‑free balanced reciprocating drive); US 2016/0095966 (Smith & Nephew, negative pressure device); US 2014/0378946 (DS Labs, concealable breast compression); US 2016/0158424 (Chen / Metal Industries R&D Centre, hidden and wearable breast‑milk pumping system); US 2016/0325031 (Jared Miller, breast pump system). See US11260151B2 citation listing and US12097312B2 §7.

⚠️ One entry in the aggregated citation table — DE 382211 C (1923, "brake for hose reel for fire engines") — is facially incoherent as breast‑pump art and I treat it as an aggregation/OCR artefact in the Google Patents table, not a deliberate citation.

3.3 Third‑party prior art already deployed against the siblings (transferable)

PTAB petitions against Elvie's sibling patents in this same family identify combinations that a POSITA actually assembled:

• IPR2024‑00953 ('893): Khalil (+ Kurihara), further + Hu, Schlensog, Baker (W.D. Wash. Dkt. 121).
• IPR2025‑00554 ('454): Furrer (+ Alvarez), + Pollen, + Weniger (petition 1557370), and Park + Silver + Rigert + Kasting.
• Petition 1556114 ('380): Chang + Weber + Guthrie ("Smart Breast Pump System," pub. 2016‑03‑24, with an internal vacuum pump, USB‑rechargeable batteries, and flat‑based bottles) (petition 1556114).

Supporting references I could open: Silver, US 6,110,140 (clamshell‑housed barrier/diaphragm that separates the vacuum source from the milk) — PDF; Makower et al., US 10,660,995 B2 / Chang et al., US 11,400,189 B2 (ExploraMed NC7) — US10660995, US11400189.

Confidence note. "Kurihara," "Pollen," "Alvarez," "Baker," "Rigert," "Kasting," "Weber," "Park," "Furrer," "Guthrie," "Hu" and "Schlensog" are names I read out of third‑party petitions. I could verify full bibliographic data only for Silver, Weniger (US 2004/0087898 A1), Chen (US 2016/0158424 A1) and Chang/Makower. I will not invent publication numbers for the others.

4. Obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — The core in‑bra wearable architecture

Khalil (US 2013/0023821 A1) in view of Kurihara; further in view of Hu and Schlensog.

Motivation: each reference is in the same field (breast pumps) and each element performs its known function. Rechargeable‑battery substitution is a classic KSR "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way" (MPEP 2144.04); the slide‑on housing is a recognized convenience feature. Elvie's own contentions in the W.D. Wash. case took a broad view of these limitations in litigation, which weakens any narrow‑construction escape. Confidence: medium‑high as to the elements, medium as to the '151's exact claim wording.

Ground 2 — Substituting a piezo pump for a motor‑driven vacuum pump

Any of Ground 1's bases, further in view of the TTP Ventus disc pump; optionally Smith & Nephew US 2016/0095966.

The '151's admitted‑prior‑art statement that a TTP Ventus piezo pump is "suitable" and its published 400 mBar / 1.5 L‑min‑¹ figures convert the claimed "piezo air pump" into an off‑the‑shelf component selection. US 2016/0095966 shows piezo/diaphragm pumping in a wearable negative‑pressure medical device.

Motivation (the strongest in the whole record): the '151's own background frames the problem as mains‑tethered, "noisy, uncomfortable and hard to clean" devices; piezo pumps are documented as near‑silent, compact and low‑vibration. The claims' own dependent features (e.g., "< 30 dB") are the result of that substitution, not an independent invention. KSR permits substitution of one known vacuum source for another where the results are predictable. Confidence: high that this rationale is available; medium‑high on element mapping.

Ground 3 — "Diaphragm sealed only at its outer edge," milk path running beneath the barrier

Khalil + Silver US 6,110,140 / Park / Furrer / Weniger US 2004/0087898 A1.

Silver's barrier/diaphragm is enclosed in a two‑part housing and separates the vacuum source from the milk path; Park's "flow separation membrane" is covered and sealed by a cover and expressly prevents milk from flowing back to the air nozzle; Weniger's membrane isolates the vacuum source from expressed milk. The '151's asserted advance — a continuous, non‑annular membrane sealed only around its outer edge, with the milk path passing under the barrier rather than through it — is squarely the difference between Khalil's annular membrane (as the applicant characterised it) and Silver/Park.

Motivation: the milk‑path‑through‑the‑annulus geometry is what the '151 itself criticises as "large and bulky." Removing the central aperture to (i) enlarge the effective working area, (ii) simplify cleaning and (iii) keep milk away from the seal is a predictable mechanical re‑arrangement with a recognized benefit — precisely what KSR and MPEP 2144.03 treat as obvious. Confidence: medium‑high.

Ground 4 — Rigid, reusable, gravity‑fed container replacing collapsible bags

US 2016/0206794 A1 + Khalil + Dao US 8,118,772 / Myers US 7,789,865 / Prentiss US 6,440,100 (+ Grabenkort US 2008/0009815).

The '151 specification states the problem and the motivation for the solution: bags waste milk through capillary action, are non‑reusable, impose recurring cost, and cap collection at ~110 ml. Dao, Myers and Prentiss all disclose self‑contained reservoirs/vacuum chambers for hands‑free pumping.

Motivation: where the prior art itself identifies the deficiency, replacing the collapsible bag with a rigid, cleanable, re‑usable container shaped to continue the housing's curve (with a duck‑bill valve that stays closed under vacuum) is the obvious design response, not an inventive step. The 2:1 to 3:1 aspect‑ratio ("wider than tall") and flat base are textbook consequence of making the container double as a stand. Confidence: high on motivation, medium on claim mapping.

Ground 5 — Wireless control, app/cloud telemetry, haptics and fill indicators

US 2016/0158424 A1 (Chen) + Guthrie (US 2016/0081748 family, "Smart Breast Pump System") + Grabenkort US 2008/0009815 + US 2016/0095966.

Chen expressly discloses a wearable, hidden breast‑milk pumping system with a wireless control unit, a vacuum pump, a collecting‑unit sensor detecting "full" and signalling the control module to stop, and a remote device (smartphone) controlling pumping strength and cycle. Guthrie discloses an internal pump, rechargeable batteries with USB charging, and flat‑based bottles. Grabenkort discloses pressure‑based vacuum control for a breast pump; US 2016/0095966 discloses inferring canister fill from pressure‑signal characteristics.

Motivation: remote control and "full" alerts are the very conveniences the wearable form factor creates demand for; combining a known wireless control module with a known wearable pump is the combination of two known elements each doing what it was known to do. Confidence: high.

Ground 6 — The IR liquid‑level sensing families (§B)

US 2016/296681 (admitted) + US 2016/0095966 + conventional reflective optical level sensing + accelerometer tilt compensation.

The '151 spec concedes the known droplet‑counting sensor and its own statement that a single top‑mounted laser in an industrial milk tank is unsuited to moving containers. Replacing cumulative droplet counting with a ratio‑based reflection measurement (multiple emitters equidistant from one receiver, discrimination by wavelength or time‑multiplexing) between a container's milk surface and a window is a routine application of well‑known optical distance sensing; adding an accelerometer to flag/suppress readings during sloshing is routine instrument practice, and the spec's own alternative (pressure‑based volume inference) mirrors US 2016/0095966.

Motivation: elimination of cumulative error, power savings (sensor need not run continuously), and orientation independence are all stated in the specification as the reasons to change — i.e., the motivation is supplied by the applicant. Confidence: medium‑high.

Ground 7 — §D piezo‑pump arrays in series/parallel with heat sinks

TTP Ventus disc pump + general pump‑engineering principles + US 2016/0095966.

Series connection to raise stall pressure and parallel connection to raise free‑flow are elementary fluid‑power trade‑offs; bonding a heat sink to a piezo actuator to manage thermal derating is routine. The '151's own text frames temperature‑responsive dynamic adjustment as an optimisation ("to optimise the total life of the component whist maintaining peak pressures") — the language of engineering optimization rather than invention. Confidence: medium.

§C (bra clip). I have only the specification's own framing (fixed hooks in US 4,390,024 A are inadequate; an integrated pump adds 3–4 cup sizes under EN 13402). The obviousness case would rest on US 4,390,024 A in view of ordinary nursing‑bra sliders/hooks and adjustable‑clasp art. Confidence: low — I could not retrieve the bra‑clip claim language and will not guess at it.

5. Consolidated motivation to combine (the KSR rationales)

1. Same field / reasonably pertinent. All references are breast pumps or wearable negative‑pressure medical devices; no field‑crossing problem.
2. Art‑recognized problem. The '151 background itself enumerates the deficiencies (tethered, noisy, posture‑dependent, hard to clean, wasteful bags, cumulative sensor error). Where the problem is conceded, the solution direction is often obvious.
3. Known substitution of one known element for another (motor vacuum pump → piezo pump; bag → rigid container; annular membrane → continuous membrane; droplet counting → reflection level sensing) with predictable results. MPEP 2144.03.
4. Predictable design variation (container aspect ratio, flat base, single‑push latch, guide rails, rechargeable battery).
5. Commercial pressure for discretion and quiet on‑the‑go use — an articulated design incentive under MPEP 2144.04, made explicit by the multiple players entering the category before 2017.
6. "Obvious to try" with a finite set of solutions. The '151's alternatives (piezo vs. motor pump; IR vs. pressure‑based fill; bag vs. rigid container; series vs. parallel) are the enumerable options of the field.

6. Secondary considerations to weigh

• Commercial success of the Elvie Pump line is real but nexus is vulnerable: the claimed broad architecture is what the prior art discloses; success traces to ergonomics, brand and app experience.
• Copying cuts against patentee here — Willow/ExploraMed was earlier to market (US 2016/0206794 A1, 2014–2016 priority), so the "copying" storyline runs the other way.
• Long‑felt need is arguably a weakness, not strength: the need was known and being attacked by several independent actors — the classic signature of an obvious solution.
• Teaching away: the specification's criticism of Khalil's annular membrane and of bag‑based systems is the patentee's best non‑obviousness hook, but criticism of a deficiency is not teaching away from the claimed solution absent evidence that the art discouraged the applicant's alternative.

I found no documentary evidence (awards, licenses, praise, unexpected‑results data) in the sources reached; I flag that as an evidence gap rather than a finding.

7. Where the § 103 case is weakest

1. No claim text. Every mapping above is built on the specification and on sibling claims. A rigorous opinion must be re‑run against the '151's actual claims and its file wrapper (the '151 issued ~11 months after filing, suggesting relatively smooth allowance).
2. The "closed‑loop" limitation. If claim 1 requires a genuinely closed air side (sealed diaphragm with only an outer‑edge seal, pump not vented to atmosphere in the working path), that combination may be harder to reach with Khalil alone; Silver/Park help, but the specific loop topology matters.
3. The "removably mounted on a breast shield" placement. If the claim requires the diaphragm to be removably mounted on the breast shield (rather than in a generic housing), Furrer/Park/Silver must be marshalled specifically to that placement.
4. No IPR against this patent. I found PTAB petitions against '454, '893, '380 and '381 — but none identified by the number 11,260,151. That means the strongest third‑party obviousness record in this family has not yet been tested against the '151 claims. Absence of an IPR is not evidence of validity (it may be strategic, or mooted by the September 2025 dismissal with prejudice).

8. Bottom line

• On the record I can reach, the core architecture of US 11,260,151 — in‑bra wearable housing, battery‑powered diaphragm pump, breast flange/nipple‑tunnel shield, one‑way valve, detachable milk container — is strongly obvious over Khalil (US 2013/0023821 A1) plus US 2016/0206794 A1, both of which are admitted prior art on the face of the specification itself.
• The "piezo air pump" limitation is largely self‑defeating: the specification names the TTP Ventus pump and its performance figures, making this a component‑selection issue.
• Khalil + Silver (US 6,110,140), and the Park + Silver combination already accepted for institution against sibling '454, are the strongest vehicle for the outer‑edge‑only diaphragm seal and the milk path passing beneath the barrier.
• US 2016/0158424 (Chen) + Guthrie cover the wireless/app/fill‑alert families; US 2016/296681 + routine reflective optical sensing + accelerometer tilt rejection cover the §B level‑sensing families.
• The decisive unknown is the '151's actual claim 1. Until it is pulled from Patent Center or the granted‑patent PDF, this analysis is a ground‑identification opinion, not a claim‑by‑claim § 103 conclusion.