DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 7, 9-21 and 25-26 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, the applicant has amended to add the limitation of the second part being adapted to rotate relative to the first part while a fluid seal is maintained. The examiner does not find support for this limitation. The drawings do not show a structure by which the seal is independent of the rotation of the second part relative to the first. The specification, which discusses the sealed connection at paragraph 28, also does not indicate any ability to rotate the second part with relation to the first while maintaining a fluid seal. The examiner therefore holds that the limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 9-16, 18, 21 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,759,210 to Fulmer et al. (Fulmer hereinafter) in view of U.S. Patent 5,207,459 to Glover (Glover).
Regarding claim 1, Fulmer teaches a pump (10) comprising a housing (12), a motor (18) mounted in the housing (motor is illustrated in Fig. 1 as having a housing connected with the pump housing 12), a shaft (46), a first and second connectors (92) adapted for attachment to fluid lines and being in fluid communication by a tube (90) and releasably attached to the housing (see Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the pump urges fluid from the first connector to the second and the first and second connectors are releasably secured to the housing (within slots 32). Fulmer does not teach first and second parts releasably and rotatably connected together with a bend portion in the second part. Glover teaches another pipe coupling generally, and particularly teaches that a first (11, 23) and a second (13, 23’) part are releasably connected (col. 2, ln. 28-37) by a threaded connection (26, 27) including a nut (14) with internal threads (27) for engaging external threads (26) on the first part (23, see Fig. 1). Furthermore, Glover teaches that the connection may be used with elbows (col. 6, ln. 55-61) and that the first and second parts are releasably connected together via threads (26, 27) that form a fluid tight seal (by tightening gasket 54). Glover further teaches that the second part (in particular 23’) is adapted to rotate relative to the first part while the parts are connected and independently of the fluid tight seal formed by the threaded connection (26, 27, and 29) the examiner notes that the seal, being formed primarily by the gasket 29, see col. 3, ln. 43-51, will be maintained independent of any rotation of the second part 13, 23’). Glover teaches that this connection is advantageously inexpensive and strong (col. 2, ln. 4-9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a connector as taught by Glover in place of each of the connectors of Fulmer in order to increase strength and/or reduce cost. Regarding the 90-degree bend, Glover indicates that the presence or absence of a 90-degree bend, or elbow, is a design choice which does not substantively affect the operation of a connection or attached machinery. Accordingly, the examiner holds that this limitation is obvious in view of Fulmer and Glover. Alternatively, the examiner notes that the courts have held that neither rearrangement of otherwise known parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C) nor changes in shape which do not affect operation (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B) confer patentable distinctions on a claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Fulmer teaches first and second tab portions (reduced diameter sections 94 and adjacent walls) which are received into slots (32, see Fig. 3). Given the relatively similar geometries of the connectors of these two references, it would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the slots (32) would be configured to retain other planar objects such as the adapters (23, 23’) of Glover. Alternatively, the provision of connectors as taught by Glover may be performed further outside the pump of Fulmer, leaving the slots and hose interactions therewith intact.
Regarding claim 3, Fulmer teaches a chamber (within 22) through which the tube (90) passes wherein the slot is formed in a side wall of the chamber.
Regarding claim 7, Fulmer teaches a plate (42) mounted perpendicular to a shaft (46), and that the first and second connectors are disposed on opposite sides of the plate along a direction perpendicular the longitudinal axes of the connectors. Fulmer further teaches a finger, as shown in annotated Fig. 6 below. Having essentially the same geometry as that disclosed by applicant, this structure is inherently adapted to perform the same function.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fulmer teaches that the first side of the plate (42) faces the housing (12).
Regarding claims 10-12, Fulmer teaches that the finger extends in the plane of the plate in an arcuate profile which extends in the direction of rotation of the rotor.
Regarding claim 13, Fulmer teaches a rounded edge (see Fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 14, Fulmer teaches a plurality of rotors (48) adapted to squeeze the tube (16) against the housing (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Fulmer teaches a cover (20).
Regarding claim 16, Fulmer teaches that the cover (20) may be tethered to the housing (via latches 24).
Regarding claim 18, Fulmer teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 18 depends, as discussed above, but does not teach a valve in a second fluid line. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of valves to prevent backflow into a pump or its fittings is well known. The examiner bases this assertion on the range of commercially available products, including tube clamps, which would accomplish the claimed function. Accordingly, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to combine a valved fluid line with the pump of Fulmer in order to prevent backflow into the pump.
Regarding claim 21, Glover teaches releasable connections which are advantageously inexpensive and strong, as discussed above. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that such connection would allow for easy replacement of parts during maintenance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use releasable tubing connections as taught by Glover in the pump of Fulmer in order to improve ease of maintenance as well as strength and manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 25, Glover teaches that the connections are independent.
Regarding claim 26, Glover teaches that the nut is rotatable relative to the second part while remaining in a same axial position along the first axis of the first part, so long as the threaded portions (26, 27) are not engaged.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulmer in view of Glover as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2015/0151314 to Hendricks, Sr. (Hendricks).
Regarding claim 17, Fulmer teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 17 depends, but does not teach the limitation of a stepper motor. Hendricks teaches that stepper motors are known for use with peristaltic pumps, and are further known for suitability for precision control (paragraph 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a stepper motor as taught by Hendricks in the pump of Fulmer in order to precisely control the pump.
Regarding claim 20, Hendricks further teaches a sensor (116) and a controller (106) for control of the pump. In order to provide the precise control of the combination, it would further have been obvious to include the sensor and controller.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulmer in view of Glover as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2011/0033318 to Ramirez et al. (Ramirez).
Regarding claim 19, Fulmer teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 19 depends, as discussed above, but does not include a connection port and flying lead. Ramirez teaches another peristaltic pump generally, and further teaches a flying lead (see Fig. 1, not specifically labeled) for connecting a motor (12) for speed control (paragraph 24). Ramirez teaches a connector (at the motor) and a connection port (at the free end), as well as a cable longer than the distance from the connection port to the edge of the relevant housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flying lead as taught by Ramirez to the pump of Fulmer in order to connect the motor of Fulmer for control thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Glover does not teach the claimed threaded seal with rotation, the examiner must first note the rejection under 112a above. The examiner does not find support for this limitation in the applicant’s specification as filed. This limitation therefore cannot form the basis for patentability of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the claim requires “first and second parts releasably connected together by a threaded connection that forms a fluid-tight seal”. Notably, the claim does not specify that the seal is between the first and second parts of the connector. Since Glover teaches two separate gaskets (29 and 54), the threaded connection (26, 27) of the first part (11, 23) to the nut (14) creates a fluid seal (via 29) which is entirely independent of the rotation or sealing state of the second part (13, 23’), which uses a separate gasket (54) to create another fluid seal. Accordingly, the examiner holds that, even if the applicant had demonstrated possession of this limitation, it would not patentably distinguish over the combined references.
Further still, the examiner notes that the compression of the second gasket (54) is not automatically relieved by outward travel of the second part (at 23’). Instead, as shown in Fig. 4, the gasket (54) is not rotationally locked by the threaded connection on that side and the seal is therefore tolerant of relative rotation.
Finally, the examiner notes that this fitting is not critical to the invention. The applicant specifically states that “[w]hile a threaded connection is shown, it would be apparent that this was merely exemplary and other releasable connections would be compatible with the present disclosure” (paragraph 28). Accordingly, the examiner continues to hold that mere rearrangement of parts and changes in shape are not sufficient grounds to establish non-obviousness. In the absence of any evidence for criticality, the examiner maintains that the invention is obvious over Fulmer and Glover as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on 571-270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 12 March 2026