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 Objections
Claims 1-13, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, “”is comprising” in line 13 should read “comprises” for proper/consistent grammar.
As to claim 13, “”is comprising” in line 2 should read “comprises” for proper/consistent grammar.
As to claim 15, “”is comprising” in line 22 should read “comprises” for proper/consistent grammar.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pressure cycle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior claims refer to multiple different pressure cycles so it is unclear which pressure is being referred to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pressure cycle" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior claims refer to multiple different pressure cycles so it is unclear which pressure is being referred to.
Claim 15 introduces “n conveying elements” in line 2, and “a squeeze tube” in line 4. However, claim 14 already introduced a plurality of cyclically moving conveying elements and a squeeze tube. It is unclear if claim 15 intends to introduce new elements separate from those of claim 14 or further limit the elements introduced in claim 14. Assuming the latter, the language in claim 15 should be amended to refer back to the conveying elements and the squeeze tube of claim 14.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks submitted 3/24/26 have been considered.
With regard to the previous claim objections (section II of Remarks), and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (section III of Remarks), the amendments have obviated the previous objections and rejections, thereby making the Remarks moot/persuasive.
With regard to the arguments concerning the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (section IV of Remarks), the arguments are partially persuasive. I.e. while not agreeing with all of the applicant’s Remarks, the examiner does agree that Mulreany et al. (US 4,838,856), cited previously and hereafter “Mulreany” and Kalafut et al. (US 2007/0213662 A1), cited previously and hereafter “Kalafut”) are not explicit to the limitations of "the first control loop is adapted to receive an actual pressure established in the discharge line, a setpoint volumetric flow and the pressure limit, and is arranged to calculate for each pressure cycle of the plurality of cyclically repeating pressure cycles a prediction pressure representing an expected maximum pressure within the pressure cycle on the basis of at least the actual pressure in the discharge line” in combination with the rest of the limitations of each amended independent claim. Since this appears to be enough to differentiate each independent claim from the prior art of record, further discussion would be moot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are allowed.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 14, Mulreany discloses a peristaltic pump (20) comprising a control device (control system 112; see Figs. 1-3), a squeeze tube (54), a discharge line (74) connected to the squeeze tube, a pressure sensor (76) configured to determine an actual pressure in the discharge line (see lines 47-50 col. 4 & paragraph beginning line 9 col. 11), and a plurality of cyclically moving conveying elements (52),
wherein each conveying element of the plurality of cyclically moving conveying elements is adapted to cyclically compress the squeeze tube so that a pressure curve is established in the discharge line, the pressure curve having a plurality of cyclically repeating consecutive pressure cycles (see at least Fig. 3 and para beginning line 19 col. 4; this stanza merely describing natural operation of a peristaltic pump),
wherein each pressure cycle of the plurality of cyclically repeating consecutive pressure cycles has a pressure minimum, a pressure rise, a pressure maximum and a pressure drop (again see at least Fig. 3 and para beginning line 19 col. 4; this stanza merely describing natural operation of a peristaltic pump);
wherein the control device
is adapted to control a speed of the peristaltic pump in such a way that a maximum volume flow rate is achieved without exceeding a predefined pressure limit in the discharge line (see para beginning line 9 col. 6 and para beginning line 49 col. 7),
has a first control loop for controlling the maximum volume flow rate, the first control loop adapted to receive the actual pressure in the discharge line (see Fig. 3, overpressure sensor 76 connected to 112), a setpoint volumetric flow rate and the predefined pressure limit (see lines 19-31 col. 4 and at least the paragraphs beginning line 65 col. 1, line 9 col. 6 and line 49 col. 7; the dynamic flow rate adjustment prevents overpressures in the output line through use of various parameters and therefore effectively controls maximum flow rate as claimed),
and wherein the control device is further configured to limit the maximum volume flow rate (see lines 19-31 col. 4 and at least the paragraphs beginning line 65 col. 1, line 9 col. 6 and line 49 col. 7; the dynamic flow rate adjustment prevents overpressures in the output line through use of various parameters and therefore effectively controls maximum flow rate).
However, Mulreany does not expressly recite the first control loop being arranged to calculate for each pressure cycle a prediction pressure representing an expected maximum pressure within the pressure cycle, on the basis of at least the actual pressure in the discharge line and thus limiting the maximum volume flow rate specifically by taking into account the prediction pressure, in such a way that the actual pressure in the discharge line does not exceed the pressure limit in each pressure cycle of the plurality of cyclically repeating consecutive pressure cycles in combination with the rest of the rest of the limitations as noted above. Therefore claim 14 is considered non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Claims 15-16 depend from claim 14.
Claim 1 is largely similar to claim 14 and is therefore considered allowable for similar reasons to the above.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 James D Ponton whose telephone number is (571)272-1001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/James D Ponton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights