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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-25) in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search for the subject matter of any one group would so overlap the search for the subject matter of the remaining groups that examining all groups can be performed without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because group I directed to a pump and method of using the pump, while group II directed to method of fluid control through the pump system including method of manipulating plurality of pumps. Each group requires separate field of search as noted in the restriction requirement mailed 10/01/2025, and requires separate queries for “stopping the first pump, actuating a second pump to move at least one component of the whole blood to a collection component of the apheresis system including moving the second pump form an open state to a closed state, when the second pump is actuated, the first pump is moved from a closed state to an open state”, for group II, and therefore additional search would be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
Claims 1-25 are examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a fluid ingress prevention feature configured to collect and prevent fluid from contacting at least one internal pump component in claim 20.
For the examination purpose the fluid ingress prevention feature is interpreted as a structure illustrated in specification [0106].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Felt et al(US 20180304001 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Felt teaches a method for fluid control in a pump, the method comprising:
inserting tubing into a pump via an inlet guide and an outlet guide ([0130] tubing inserted into tubing guides 244 and 252), the pump being in an open state with a tubing pressure block in a first position (figure 2c and [0130], the pressure block 248 in a first position (away from the pump head));
closing the pump by moving the tubing pressure block to a second position (figure 2b and [0130] the pressure block in a second position (proximate to the rotary pump head), the tubing being fully occluded between at least one roller of a rotor sub-assembly and a raceway of the tubing pressure block ([0132] roller 268 engages pressure block 248 occluding the tubing 108b); and
actuating the pump including rotating the at least one roller such that fluid within the tubing is moved in a direction corresponding to rotation of the rollers ([0132] as the pump rotates, the rotary pressure rollers 268 compress a portion of the tubing and displacing fluid in a direction 250a or 250b corresponding to rotation of the rollers).
Regarding claim 22, Felt teaches the method of claim 20.
Felt further teaches wherein the pump further comprises a tubing guard configured to engage with the inlet guide and the outlet guide (figures 2b-c, [0133] tubing guard 240 engages one or more guard closure features 254 disposed in the tubing guides 244 and 252 in closed configuration)
Regarding claim 23, Felt teaches the method of claim 21.
Felt further teaches wherein the tubing is disposed between the tubing guard and the inlet guide and between the tubing guard and the outlet guide when the pump is closed (figures 2b-c, tubing 108b disposed between the tubing guard 248 and tubing guides 244 and 252)
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-5, 10-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Vial et al (US 3990444 A)
Regarding claim 1, Felt substantially teaches applicant’s claimed invention, and specifically discloses a device with every structural limitation of applicant’s claimed invention (except for the limitations shown in italics and grayed-out) including:
a pump (figure 2b, pump 208) for fluids, the pump comprising:
a rotor sub-assembly (figure 2c and [0130] rotating tubing contact head comprising plates 272a, 272b and pressure rollers 268), the rotor sub-assembly including at least one roller;
a tubing pressure block (figure 2c, tubing pressure block 248) including a raceway (figure 2c, and [0130] surface of tubing pressure block 248 where tubing 108b being inserted) and at least one projection, the tubing pressure block being movable between a first position and a second position ([0130] the tubing pressure block 248 is movable between a first position (proximate to the rotary pump head) and a second position (away from the pump head));
an inlet guide (figure 2c, lead tubing guide 244) including an inlet channel (figure 2c and [0130] groove formed on the lead tubing guide where tubing 110 is being inserted), the inlet guide disposed proximate to a first side (figure 2, direction 250b) of the tubing pressure block;
an outlet guide (figure 2c, end tubing guide 252) including an outlet channel (figure 2c and [0130] groove formed on the end tubing guide where tubing 110 is being inserted), the outlet guide disposed proximate to a second side (figure 2, direction 250a) of the tubing pressure block, the second side of the tubing pressure block being disposed opposite the first side of the tubing pressure block such that there is a substantially straight path between the inlet guide and the outlet guide (see figure 2c, the tubing guides 244 and 252 and pressure block 248 are aligned and provide substantially straight path for tubing 108B); and
a tubing guard (figure 2b, tubing guard 240) configured to engage with the inlet guide and the outlet guide when the tubing guard is in a closed position ([0133] tubing guard 240 may be held in a closed position via one or more guard closure features disposed in the tubing guard 240 and tubing guides 244 and 252) and configured to expose at least a portion of the rotor sub-assembly, the tubing pressure block, the inlet guide, and the outlet guide when in an open position (figure 2c, [0129] [0133] in open position, the tubing guard 240 expose the rotating tubing contact head, tubing guides and tubing pressure block).
Felt does not teach the tubing pressure block including at least one projection.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a blood transfusion apparatus, Vial teaches the tubing pressure block including at least one projection (figures 3 and 5, slidable member 18 including zones c and d are project toward a wheel relative to zone A and B ).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, to incorporate the teachings of Vial and provides the tubing pressure block as claimed for the purpose of configuring the surface of the pressure block matches the radial path of the rotating head assembly, thereby ensuring the at least two rollers pressing against the tube at the same time and ensuring fully occluding the tube and preventing fluid migration when the pump stops as taught by Vial (col 2 lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 2, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the raceway is curved and is configured to meet an arc of the rotor sub-assembly when the tubing pressure block is in the first position (Vial; figure 3, the slidable member 18 defining a curved raceway for tubing 22 and the slidable member is configured to meet an arc of wheel 12 )
Regarding claim 3, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the pump is configured to engage a section of tubing (Felt; figure 2c, [0132] the pressure rollers 268 of the head configured to engage a section of tubing disposed in the tubing pressure block 248, and the section of tubing being disposed through the race away formed on the surface of tubing pressure block 248 facing the pump head, and tubing guides 244 and 262), the section of tubing being disposed through the inlet guide, the raceway, and the outlet guide.
Regarding claim 4, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 3.
The combination further teaches wherein the section of tubing is configured to be occluded when the tubing pressure block is in the second position (Felt; figure 2c, [0130] and [0132], when the pressure block 248 positioned closed to the pump head, the pressure roller 268 of the pump head occludes the tubing 108b)
Regarding claim 5, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 4.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one roller is configured to engage with the section of tubing to cause the tubing to be occluded when the tubing pressure block is in the second position (Felt; figure 2c, [0130] and [0132], when the pressure block 248 positioned proximate the pump head, the pressure roller 268 of the pump head occludes the tubing 108b).
Regarding claim 10, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 1.
The combination further teaches comprising at least one sensor disposed proximate to at least one of the inlet guide, the outlet guide, or the tubing pressure block (Felt; [0133] guard closure features 254 disposed in tubing guides 244, 252 and tubing pressure block 248).
Regarding claim 11, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 10.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensor, a line sensor, a cover position sensor, a movable block position sensor, an inductive sensor, an optical sensor, a light sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or an air or fluid sensor (Felt; [0133] the guard closure feature being a cover position sensor)
Regarding claim 12, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the tubing pressure block further comprises a cavity including at least one bias member configured to maintain the tubing pressure block in at least one of the first position or the second position.
In the same field of endeavor, namely blood transfusion apparatus, Vial teaches wherein the tubing pressure block further comprises a cavity including at least one bias member configured to maintain the tubing pressure block in at least one of the first position or the second position (figure 3, compression springs maintain the slidable member 18 in the first position (proximate the pump head 12)).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Vial, to incorporate the teachings of Vial and provides the tubing pressure block as claimed for the purpose of urging the pressure block against at least one roller as taught by Vial (col 4 lines 20-26), thereby providing precise pumping.
Regarding claim 13, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 12.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one bias member is at least one spring (Vial; figure 3, compression springs 18)
Regarding claim 18, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 12.
The combination further teaches wherein the pump is an anticoagulant pump (Felt; [0127]) and the first position is a closed position (figure 2c, the pressure block proximate to the rotary pump head)
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Vial et al (US 3990444 A), and in further view of Bresina et al (US 20150273140 A1) and Labanco et al (US 20080175734 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 3.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the tubing guard comprises at least one downward sloped portion configured to guide tubing into the pump
In the same field of endeavor, namely a infusion system, Bresina teaches wherein the tubing guard (figure 3, pressure plate 20) comprises at least one downward sloped portion (figure 3 [0042] and [0045], slopped end 16 of guide 26 configured to guide and align tubing 11 to pump control module 10) configured to guide tubing into the pump.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Via, to incorporate the teachings of Bresina and provides the tubing guard as claimed for the purpose of precisely aligning the tubing relative to the pump as taught by Bresina ([0045]).
Felt, as modified by Vial and Bresina, do not teach the tubing guard comprises at least one channel projection configured to engage with at least one of the inlet channel or the outlet channel when the tubing guard is in the closed position.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a tube retainer system, Labanco teaches the tubing guard (figures 2 and 3, retainer system 18) comprises at least one channel projection (figure 3, base 32 projected from body 22 configured to engage with notch 48 and 50 of retainer 34) configured to engage with at least one of the inlet channel or the outlet channel when the tubing guard is in the closed position.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Vial and Bresina, to incorporate the teachings of Labanco and provides the tubing guard and the inlet channel as claimed for the purpose of preventing the tubing from slipping during pumping without significant distortion as taught by Labanco ([0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Felt, as modified by Vial, Bresina and Labanco, teaches the pump of claim 6.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one channel projection is configured to engage with and semi-occlude the section of tubing (Labanco; figure 3 and [0024], portion of tubing 42 being held between retainer 34 and base 32 configured to be semi-occluded) between the tubing guard and at least one of the inlet guide or the outlet guide when the tubing guard is in the closed position.
Regarding claim 8, Felt, as modified by Vial, Bresina and Labanco, teaches the pump of claim 6
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one channel projection comprises a first channel projection configured to engage with the inlet channel and a second channel projection configured to engage with the outlet channel when the tubing guard is in the closed position (Labanco; figures 2, 3 [0021] the pump system having a pair of tube retainer system 18, each comprising a base 32 (equivalent to channel projection) configured to engage with retainers 34 (equivalent to inlet or outlet channel)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Vial et al (US 3990444 A), and in further view of Bastian (US 3353491 A)
Regarding claim 9, Felt, as modified by vial, teaches the pump of claim 3.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the section of tubing is configured to stretch when the pump is in operation and wherein the raceway comprises at least one sidewall feature configured to collect a stretched portion of the section of tubing.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a pumping device, Bastian teaches wherein the section of tubing is configured to stretch when the pump is in operation (figures 1 and 2, col 3 lines 49-65, the portion of the tubing is configured to be stretched between grooves 42 and 44 when wheel member 14 rotates) and wherein the raceway comprises at least one sidewall feature configured to collect a stretched portion of the section of tubing (figure 1, the arcuate-bearing surface 34 collect the stretched tubing)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Vial, to incorporate the teachings of Bastian and provides the method as claimed for the purpose of axially fixes the tubing relative to the pump head, ensuring simultaneous and consistent engagement by the rollers as taught by Bastian (col 3 lines 50-65). Consequently, the rollers effectively occlude and release the tubing to provide a precise peristaltic pumping action.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Vial et al (US 3990444 A), and in further view of Lang (US 5609572 A).
Regarding claim 14, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 12.
The combination does not teach wherein the tubing pressure block further comprises at least one driven motive member disposed within the cavity, the at least one driven motive member being configured to overcome the at least one bias member.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a cassette infusion system, Lang teaches wherein the tubing pressure block (figure 3 and col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 50, valve incorporating piston 43, spring 45 and valve control cylinder 21 or piston 32, spring 35 and pump cylinder 30) further comprises at least one driven motive member (figure, pump cylinder 21 or 30) disposed within the cavity, the at least one driven motive member being configured to overcome the at least one bias member (figure 3 and col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 50, compressed air entering via port 44 or 31 push the pistons against the spring).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Via, to incorporate the teachings of Lang and provides the tubing pressure block as claimed for the purpose of electro-pneumatically control the pressure block between open or closed position as taught by Lang (col 2 lines 5-10). This configuration simplifies the assembly by minimizing the mechanical components required for actuating the tubing pressure block in opposing directions.
Regarding claim 19, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 18.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the tubing pressure block is configured to move from the first position to the second position when an external force is applied to the tubing pressure block.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a cassette infusion system, Lang teaches wherein the tubing pressure block is configured to move from the first position to the second position when an external force is applied to the tubing pressure block (figure 3 col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 50, moving the piston 43 between open and closed position by compressed air).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Via, to incorporate the teachings of Lang and provides the tubing pressure block as claimed for the purpose of electro-pneumatically controlling the pressure block between open or closed position as taught by Lang (col 2 lines 5-10).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Vial et al (US 3990444 A) and Lang (US 5609572 A), and in further view of Odland (US 5265593 A)
Regarding claim 15, Felt, as modified by Vial and Lang, teaches the pump of claim 14.
The combination does not teach wherein the at least one driven motive member is a pneumatic diaphragm, the pneumatic diaphragm configured to inflate and move the tubing pressure block away from the first position or the second position.
Odland teaches a pressure actuator, which relatively pertinent to the problem posed by applicant of actuating the pressure block pneumatically, comprising a pneumatic diaphragm (figure 4, flexible impermeable diaphragm 42), the pneumatic diaphragm configured to inflate and move the tubing pressure block away from the first position or the second position (as shown figures 4 and 6, the diaphragm 42 is configured to be inflate and deflate).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Vial and Lang, to incorporate the teachings of Odland and provides the at least one driven motive member as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing actuation efficiency, as the pneumatic diaphragm creates a reliable fluid-tight seal that allows for efficient inflation and deflation.
Regarding claim 16, Felt, as modified by Vial, Lang and Odland, teaches the pump of claim 15.
The combination further teaches wherein the pump is a normally closed pump (Lang; figure 3 and col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 50, the arrangement of valve incorporating piston 43, spring 45 and cylinder 21 is configured to maintain the valve in a normally closed position, and providing compressed air opens the valve), the first position is a closed position, the second position is an open position, the at least one bias member is configured to maintain the tubing pressure block in the first position, and the at least one driven motive member is configured to overcome the at least one bias member to move the tubing pressure block to the second position (Lang; figure 3 and col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 50, compressed air overcome the force of a compression spring and move the valve to open position indicated by arrow).
Regarding claim 17, Felt, as modified by Vial, Lang and Odland, teaches the pump of claim 15.
The combination further teaches wherein the pump is a normally open pump (Lang; figure 3 and col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 50, the arrangement of valve incorporating piston 32, spring 35 and pump cylinder 30 is configured to maintain the valve in normally open position), the first position is a closed position, the second position is an open position, the at least one bias member is configured to maintain the tubing pressure block in the second position (Lang; figure 3, spring 35 maintains the valve in open position), and the at least one driven motive member is configured to overcome the at least one bias member to move the tubing pressure block to the first position (lang; figure 3, compressed air overcomes the force of a compression spring 35 and move the valve to close position indicated by arrow).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Vial et al (US 3990444 A), and in further view of Ramirez et al (US 20090092507 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Felt, as modified by Vial, teaches the pump of claim 1.
The combination does not teach comprising a fluid ingress prevention feature configured to collect and prevent fluid from contacting at least one internal pump component.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a fluid pump systems, Ramirez teaches a fluid ingress prevention feature (figures 12-13 and [0058] perimeter wall surrounding the fluid collection area 258 configured to collect any leakages from the fluid pump assemblies thereby prevent the fluid from contacting pump component) configured to collect and prevent fluid from contacting at least one internal pump component.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt, as modified by Vial, to incorporate the teachings of Ramirez and provide the fluid ingress prevention feature for the purpose of protecting electronics from leaked fluid as taught by Ramirez ([0057]-[0058])
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Schneider (US 4986815 A).
Regarding claim 24, Felt teaches the method of claim 23.
Felt does not teach wherein the tubing is clamped into a diamond shape when disposed between the tubing guard and the inlet guide and between the tubing guard and the outlet guide.
Schneider teaches clamping jaws (figure 6, 12 and 13), which relatively pertinent to problem posed by applicant of clamping tubing, clamps the tubing into a diamond shape when disposed between the tubing guard and the inlet guide and between the tubing guard and the outlet guide (col 4 lines 50-68, jaw construction exerts clamping forces against tube 15 forcing the tube into a generally diamond-shaped cross sectional configuration).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt to incorporate the teachings of Schneider and provides the method as claimed for the purpose of providing non-slipping clamping action without occluding the lumen of the tube as taught by Schneider (col 1 lines 45-63).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felt et al (US 20180304001 A1) in view of Bastian (US 3353491 A)
Regarding claim 25, Felt teaches the method of claim 21.
Felt does not teach wherein the tubing is configured to expand when the pump is in operation and the inlet guide and the outlet guide include at least one cut-out configured to house the expanded tubing when the pump is in operation.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a pumping device, Bastian teaches wherein the tubing is configured to expand when the pump is in operation (figures 1 and 2, col 3 lines 49-65, the tubing is expanded when mounted in grooves 42 and 44) and the inlet guide and the outlet guide include at least one cut-out (figures 2 and 5, grooves 42 and 44 house the expanded tubing) configured to house the expanded tubing when the pump is in operation
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felt to incorporate the teachings of Bastian and provides the method as claimed for the purpose of axially fixes the tubing relative to the pump head, ensuring simultaneous and consistent engagement by the rollers as taught by Bastian (col 3 lines 50-65). Consequently, the rollers effectively occlude and release the tubing to provide a precise peristaltic pumping action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sullivan et al (US 20150224254 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/SETH HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781