DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 18, 22 and 23 are pending in the application with claims 1 – 3 and 9 – 18 being withdrawn, claims 6 and 19 – 21 being cancelled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 5, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franetzki et al. (EP 0019818A1 – herein after Franetzki) in view of Hogan, Lawrence R (US 4,228,930 – herein after Hogan).
In reference to claim 4, Franetzki teaches a peristaltic pump (see fig. 3) that reduces electrical current flowing through a pumping tube segment (8) [note: “that reduces electrical current flowing” being a purpose or intended use; see MPEP 2111.02(II)], comprising (see fig. 3):
a central rotor (5) mounted on a central rotation axis (4, axis being into and out of page);
a shoe (9) with a curved surface (as evident from fig. 3) having a concave curvature facing toward the central rotor (5) [facing direction is ← in view of fig. 3] and having a length of the curved surface measured along the curved surface in a circumferential direction (as evident from fig. 3); and
a plurality of rollers (6) mounted along a circumference of the central rotor (as evident from fig. 3),
a biasing mechanism (12) that exerts a force on the shoe in a direction toward the central rotor (see disclosure in ¶15 of translation), wherein
the pumping tube segment (8) is positioned (see fig. 3) between the central rotor (5) and the shoe (9), and
a pinch point (as evident from fig. 3) on the pumping tube segment (8) is defined between any roller pressing the pumping tube segment radially away (→ direction in view of fig. 3) from the central rotation axis against any portion of the shoe (9).
Franetzki remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the curved surface of the shoe includes at least one protrusion extending away from the curved surface toward the central rotor, such that a pressure on the pumping tube segment between a roller of the plurality of rollers and the at least one protrusion is greater than a pressure on the pumping tube segment at any other location, said at least one protrusion has a first end and a second end at the curved surface of the shoe, a width of the at least one protrusion is defined as a distance between the first end and the second end of the at least one protrusion.
However, Hogan teaches a similar peristaltic pump, the curved surface (34a, in fig. 2) of the shoe includes at least one protrusion (first protrusion = tube compressing member 86 in embodiment of the pump shown in fig. 2; second protrusion = ramp surface 130 in another embodiment of the pump shown in fig. 4) extending away from the curved surface toward the central rotor, such that a pressure on the pumping tube segment between a roller of the plurality of rollers and the at least one protrusion is greater than a pressure on the pumping tube segment at any other location, said at least one protrusion has a first end and a second end at the curved surface of the shoe (first protrusion 86 in fig. 2: first end being right end and second end being left end; second protrusion 130 in fig. 4 = first end being bottom end and second end being top end), a width (in circumferential direction) of the at least one protrusion is defined as a distance between the first end and the second end of the at least one protrusion.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the peristaltic pump of Franetzki for providing the first and second protrusions in the shoe as taught by Hogan for the purpose (a) (benefit associated with asserted first protrusion in Hogan) selectively compressing and reducing the internal flow capacity of the tube at its entrance end, as recognized by Hogan (col. 6, lines 11-21) and (b) (benefit associated with asserted second protrusion in Hogan) preventing dripping after each dispensing cycle, as recognized by Hogan (see col. 7, lines 29-53).
Franetzki, as modified, remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the width of the at least one protrusion is greater than a radius of each roller of the plurality of rollers.
In the modified pump of Franetzki, it is evident that each of the provided protrusions and each of the rollers have a corresponding width. The relative sizing between the protrusions’ width and the rollers’ radius is something that would be within the general skill level of a worker in the art in order to achieve a desired effect or result. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made “the width of the at least one protrusion of whatever size was expedient in relation to the size of a radius of each roller of the plurality of rollers” in the modified pump of Franetzki since that would have involved mere routine experimentation.
In reference to claim 5, Franetzki, as modified, teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the at least one protrusion is exactly two protrusions (first protrusion 86 in fig. 2 of Hogan and second protrusion 130 in fig. 4 of Hogan) on the curved surface that increase a pressure on the pumping tube segment (8 of Franetzki) at two different locations along the curved surface, and the curved surface does not have any other protrusions.
In reference to claim 22, Franetzki, as modified, teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein (see Hogan) a cross-sectional shape of each of the at least one protrusion (second protrusion 130 in fig. 4 of Hogan) has a convex curvature.
In reference to claim 23, Franetzki, as modified, teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the two protrusions (first protrusion 86 in fig. 2 of Hogan and second protrusion 130 in fig. 4 of Hogan) are spaced apart from each other by a distance that is greater than the radius of each roller of the plurality of rollers (this claimed feature will inherently flow the proposed modification discussed above in claim 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franetzki in view of Hogan and Hammer et al. (US 5,646,727 – herein after Hammer).
Franetzki does not teach the peristaltic pump, wherein the biasing mechanism includes a motor that receives control signals that modulate force applied by the motor to the shoe.
However, Hammer teaches a peristaltic pump, wherein (see col. 7, lines 36-42 and fig. 5) the biasing mechanism includes a motor (“drive motor”) that receives control signals (motor control signals such as on/off) that modulate force applied by the motor to the shoe (7).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Franetzki’s pump for incorporating the known presser plate biasing mechanism for the shoe as taught by Hammer so that “the tube tension is automatically established as the pump is being conditioned for operation and is automatically de-established at the end of each operating sequence”, as recognized by Hammer (see col. 2, lines 23-34), thus providing the benefit of stress relief on the tube and prolonging its life.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franetzki in view of Hogan and N.T. Owen (US 1,848,024 – herein after Owen).
Franetzki remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the central rotor is pivotally mounted on the central rotation axis, and a biasing mechanism exerts a force on the central rotation axis in a direction toward the shoe to press the central rotor toward the curved surface of the shoe.
However, Owen teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the central rotor (15) is pivotally mounted on the central rotation axis (at 14) [see page 1, lines 78-100 and page 2, lines 1-48], and a biasing mechanism (31) exerts a force on the central rotation axis in a direction (↓ direction in view of fig. 2 or fig. 4) toward the shoe (21) to press the central rotor (15) toward the curved surface of the shoe (21).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Franetzki’s pump for pivotally mounting the central rotor as taught by Owen for the purpose of providing a pressure to maintain the rollers in constant operative contact with the tube/hose when the pump is in normal operative position, as recognized by Owen (see page 2, lines 3-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-5 in pre-appeal brief filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 6 under 35 USC 103 over Robert in view of Hammer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found reference of Franetzki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Desschans et al. (EP 1621460 A1) teaches the peristaltic pump wherein the curved surface of the shoe includes at least one protrusion (56A, 56B; see fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights