DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12, and 15-17 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson (US 2012/0020822).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Richardson fig 1a
Claim 1, Richardson discloses a peristaltic pump comprising planetary rollers (400) that do not include an axle box arrangement (fig 1, fig 9a, force elements 400 are rings, par 0028, 0029; the rings fit into grooves for guidance, no disclosure is made of axles for the force element) and are configured to revolve around a rotor (drive mechanism 450) driving the planetary rollers, wherein the rotor is configured to push the planetary rollers against a flexible tube (tube, par 0021, 0022) such that the flexible tube is squeezed between the planetary rollers and a wall (300, par 0020, 0022) of a pump housing (fig 9a, 300 is inner surface of housing, par 0037, 0038), and a toothless contact surface (fig 9A, contact surface between 450 and 400, par 0030) between the rotor (450) and the planetary rollers (400).
Claim 2, Richardson discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 1, wherein the toothless contact surface is formed by an elastic material (force element 400 may be made of spring steel or any other flexible and compliant material par 0028; spring steel is known in the art as an elastic material).
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kent (US 7,591,639).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kent fig 6
Claim 1, Kent discloses a peristaltic pump comprising planetary rollers (290) that do not include an axle box arrangement (fig 6, this does not include axles that pass through the center of the rollers conventionally; this is similar to applicant’s disclosed invention arrangement of supporting arm 22 within the center of rollers 6 ) and are configured to revolve around a rotor (rotor 262) driving the planetary rollers, wherein the rotor is configured to push the planetary rollers (push with element 288) against a flexible tube (46a) such that the flexible tube is squeezed between the planetary rollers and a wall (264) of a pump housing (278), and a toothless contact surface (surface of posts 288, upon which rollers 290 slide) between the rotor (rotor 262) and the planetary rollers (290).
Claim 2, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 1, wherein the toothless contact surface is formed by an elastic material (post made of a material which enables flex and unflex resiliently, which fits the plain meaning of elastic, c 12 ln 38-40; furthermore posts have a spring constant which is a measure of elasticity, c 12 ln 53).
Claim 3, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 1, further comprising a rotatable support (posts 288 in arms 286, c 12 ln 34-51) having supporting arms (posts 288), the arms are arranged inside the planetary rollers (posts 288).
Claim 4, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 3, wherein the supporting arms are arranged eccentrically inside the planetary rollers (posts 288 are nonsymmetrically extended about axes 312 of rollers, c 12 ln 36-37; posts 288 are oblique and semi-cylindrical, c 12 ln 41-43).
Claim 6, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 3, wherein the rotatable support comprises two parts that sandwich the planetary rollers in-between (fig 4, fig 11, fig 12, multiple rotors are on the same shaft and sandwich rollers between them, c 13 ln 30-37).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minatodani (US 2016/0215768).
PNG
media_image3.png
462
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Minatodani fig 3
Regarding claim 1, Minatodani discloses a peristaltic pump (fig 1 and fig 3) comprising planetary rollers (planetary rollers 50) that do not include an axle box arrangement (fig 2 shows that rollers 50 do not include axial shafts; therefore Minatodani does not include a conventional axle box arrangement) and are configured to revolve around a rotor (sun roller 40) driving the planetary rollers (fig 3, par 0046), wherein the rotor is configured to push the planetary rollers against a flexible tube (elastic tube, par 0072; operation chamber is pressed by planetary rollers 50, par 0061, 0065, pump may be a tube pump, par 0030, 0055, operation chamber may be an elastic tube, par 0072) such that the flexible tube is squeezed (par 0061-0062) between the planetary rollers and a wall (inner wall surface 21a of the rigid ring 20, par 0061) of a pump housing (rigid ring 20, par 0061), and a toothless contact surface (contact surface between 40 and 50, par 0046) between the rotor (40) and the planetary rollers (50).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson
Claim 7, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 3, wherein the rotatable support comprises two separable rings (fig 3 shows rotor 262 separated from adjacent rotors 262), at least one of the …rings comprising axially projecting ring segments (posts 288 project axially and lie on an imaginary circumference line which they also rotate through; since each post is on a circumference line they each constitute only a part of the ring formed by all the posts 288 and thereby meet the limitation ring segment) forming at least partially the supporting arms (fig 6, posts 288 project axially),wherein opposite end faces of the axially projecting ring segments in a circumferential direction of the … rings are convex (fig 6, posts 288 are semi-cylinders with a half convex shape, c 12 ln 34-51).
Kent is silent on the support being separable.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make rotors 122 releasable separable from the joint shaft and thereby releasing the rotors from each other. The courts have held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose, (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), See MPEP 2144)." In this case, it would be desirable to be able to separate rotors 62 from the common shaft 122 (c 11 ln 1-12) in order to change the rotor to a different number of arms or spring rate (c 10 ln 47 – c 10 ln 67; c 12 ln 57-c 13 ln 13)
Regarding claim 16, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 6. Kent is silent on the two parts of the rotatable support (fig 3, rotors 62) are releasably connected to each other.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make rotors 122 releasable separable from the joint shaft and thereby releasing the rotors from each other. The courts have held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose, (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), See MPEP 2144)." In this case, it would be desirable to be able to separate rotors 62 from the common shaft 122 (c 11 ln 1-12) in order to change the rotor to a different number of arms or spring rate (c 10 ln 47 – c 10 ln 67; c 12 ln 57-c 13 ln 13)
Claims 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson as evidenced by O-Ring-Store (previously provided NPL obtained from https://www.theoringstore.com/store/index.php?main_page=page&id=7&srsltid=AfmBOoqMY5wvkhXm15GfQ9DUuKn5nDNn1nG9klfW1QaGJW3_wMwZQwYW, on 19 January 2025).
Claim 8, Richardson discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 1, further comprising a flexible sleeve provided between the rotor and the planetary rollers and having the toothless contact surface.
Richardson discloses that the force element 400 may include a wear resistant coating such as rulon or ceramic (par 0028) which coats the flexible force element (400, par 0028). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the wear resistant coating of the flexible force element (400) of material that is also flexible, in order for the coating to be able to adapt to the flexible shape of the force element (400) during operation; for the predictable result of maintaining the wear coating during normal operation of the flexible force element (400).
Regarding claim 9, Richardson discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 8.
Richardson is silent on the flexible sleeve (friction ring 45, 46) has a Shore a hardness of between 40 and 100.
Oringstore (obtained from https://www.theoringstore.com/, on 19 January 2025) evidences that Shore A hardness is known in the art as a measure of hardness, and was developed early in the 20th century. Oring store further evidences that a Shore A hardness of 80-90 is typically used in industrial wheels and rollers. And that it is known in the art to select a Shore A hardness to meet specific needs for performance and lifespan.
In this case, since Richardson’s roller coating is used as roller contact surfaces, and the claimed hardness between 40 and 100 is within the recommended range of Shore A hardness for industrial wheels and rollers, the selection of a Shore A hardness between 40 and 100 is obvious as routine optimization through routine experimentation in order to find a suitable hardness of the coating in order to transfer friction effectively and also select a hardness for needs and lifespan.
The court shave held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), See MPEP 2144.05(II)).” In this case, applicant has disclosed no criticality of the claimed shore hardness, and indicates only that the silicone rings with that shore A hardness have the function of transferring friction from the drive roller to the planetary rollers (Applicant’s published application, par 0035). Since, Richardson also utilizes coating in the same position to accomplish the same function it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to vary contact surface Shore hardness in order in order to optimize the transfer of friction. Therefore, any Shore A hardness is obvious as long as it met the disclosed need of aiding in the frictional engagement between the planetary rotors and the inner driving rotor.
Regarding claim 17, Richardson discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 8. Richardson is silent on the flexible sleeve has a Shore a hardness of between 60 and 80.
Oringstore (obtained from https://www.theoringstore.com/, on 19 January 2025) evidences that Shore A hardness is known in the art as a measure of hardness, and was developed early in the 20th century. Oring store further evidences that a Shore A hardness of 80-90 is typically used in industrial wheels and rollers. And that it is known in the art to select a Shore A hardness to meet specific needs for performance and lifespan.
In this case, since Richardson’s roller coating is used as roller contact surfaces, and the claimed hardness between 60 and 80 is within the recommended range of Shore A hardness for industrial wheels and rollers, the selection of a Shore A hardness between 40 and 100 is obvious as routine optimization through routine experimentation in order to find a suitable hardness of the coating in order to transfer friction effectively and also select a hardness for needs and lifespan.
The court shave held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), See MPEP 2144.05(II)).” In this case, applicant has disclosed no criticality of the claimed shore hardness, and indicates only that the silicone rings with that shore A hardness have the function of transferring friction from the drive roller to the planetary rollers (Applicant’s published application, par 0035). Since, Richardson also utilizes coating in the same position to accomplish the same function it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to vary contact surface Shore hardness in order in order to optimize the transfer of friction. Therefore, any Shore A hardness is obvious as long as it met the disclosed need of aiding in the frictional engagement between the planetary rotors and the inner driving rotor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Peclat (US 6,102,678).
Regarding claim 11, Kent discloses the peristaltic pump according to claim 1. Kent does not disclose further comprising a first sensor element revolving around the rotor at the same speed as the planetary rollers , and a stationary second sensor element configured to detect the revolution of the first sensor element .
Peclat teaches a peristaltic pump with a first sensor element (fig 9, sensor 43, mounted to rotor via transmission element 53, c 6 ln 42-48) revolving around the rotor (c 6 ln 44) at the same speed as the planetary rollers (the sensor 43 is directly attached to the rotor, and thereby turns at the same rate), and a stationary second sensor element (angular resistive encoder disc 58, c 6 ln 52-65) … [the first sensor element] configured to detect the revolution of the [second] sensor element (c 6 ln 52-65; implicitly the sensor 43 is detecting the turning of the encoder disc 58, conventionally a encoder disk functions by providing a surface for a sensor to read, as evidenced by attached NPL “How Rotary Encoders Work, obtained from https://www.thegeekpub.com/245407/how-rotary-encoders-work-electronics-basics/ on 19 January 2025).
Peclat differs from the claim because in Peclat the detecting sensor is moving while the claim calls for a stationary detecting sensor.
It would have been further obvious as a reversal of part to reverse the positions of the rotary sensor and stationary encoder of Peclat. The courts have held that a reversal of parts in the prior art that switches whether one part was fixed and the other rotating is switched is an obvious modification, (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), See MPEP 2144.04(VI)). In this case, Peclat teaches a rotary sensor and a stationary encoder disc, therefore in light of case law it is obvious to use a rotary first sensor element (encoder disk) and a stationary secondary sensor element (sensor) as claimed.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the position sensor (43) and rotary encoder disk (58) in Peclat to the housing and rotor of Kent respectively, in order to measure in real time the volume of liquid ejected by the peristaltic pump (Peclat, c 6 ln 64-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15 are allowed.
Then nearest prior art is Minatodani.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Minatodani does not disclose “an edge of the conical section next to the cylindrical section has a larger diameter than the cylindrical section.” The limitation is critical because it facilitates the axial displacement of the rotor in the operating position (Applicant’s publish application, US 2024/0026873, par 0022). The limitation does not amount to design choice, and there is no motivation to modify the prior art to incorporate said structure or provide said arrangement.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim 5, the nearest prior art is Kent.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kent does not disclose “the rotatable support is loosely connected to the rotor via the planetary rollers.” In contrast, Kent discloses a structure where the rotatable support and the rotor are an integrated structure, and therefore not “loosely connected” as claimed.
The structure of the rotatable support and support arms in relation to the rotor and rollers is critical because it secures an unchanging circumferential distance between the planetary rollers (Specification, page 2, published application par 0011, 0037).
The sum of these limitations is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not be obvious to combine references in an effort to meet all of the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 12, the nearest prior art is Kent.
Kent does not disclose “the first sensor element is provided in a receptacle of a supporting arm.
For claim 11, Kent was combined with Peclat to teach a first sensor element and a second sensor element. However, there is no disclosure that suggests connecting the first sensor in a receptacle of a supporting arm of Kent. The Kent supporting arm is a solid support post (288) within a hollow roller (290). Peclat does not attach the sensor to the interior of the hollow rotor or to the support post within the rotor. The position of the sensor element is related to the prevention of excess torque that results from the coupling of the drive shaft and rotor that are not present in the art of record.
There is no motivation or suggestion to provide the first sensor element in a receptacle of a supporting arm as claimed.
The sum of these limitations is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not be obvious to combine references in an effort to meet all of the claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 3, regarding the axle box arrangements), regarding, filed 7 July 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-6 and 8 under Renn (US 3,249,059) 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 Kent and Richardson as shown above.
Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2025 with regard to Minatodani claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Minatodani does not meet the limitation “do not include an axle box arrangement” because Minatodani shows axle support for the rollers 34 in fig 2 on opposite ends of each planetary roller.
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing. It is not clear from applicant’s disclosure that the claim limitation excluding an axle box arrangement also excludes the type of roller support shown in Minatodani.
Applicant’s only disclosure of axle box arrangement is:
“The supporting arms can be connected through a rigid base element. Further, the supporting arms can be equally spaced from each other. Preferably, the supporting arms are arranged eccentrically inside the planetary rollers. In particular, according to the preferred embodiment, the planetary rollers are free of an axle box arrangement, which further simplifies the manufacturing and reduces manufacturing costs (Filed Specification, pg 2).”
Applicant does not include drawings nor further explanation of what is meant by “axle box arrangement.”
In the absence of explicit explanation, the office will use the plain meaning to interpret terms. Under a plain meaning, an “axle” is defined as a rod or spindle passing through the center of a wheel or group of wheels.
The plain meaning appears to be in accord with applicant disclosure of roller support that they do not consider “axle box arrangement.” In their disclosure applicant discloses “supporting arms … arranged eccentrically inside the planetary rollers.” Since the supporting arms pass inside the planetary rollers, it is clear that at least some interior support of the rollers would be considered to be “free of an axle box arrangement.”
Applicant’s figures show several drawings with supporting arms arranged eccentrically within the rollers.
PNG
media_image4.png
484
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 5
PNG
media_image5.png
494
246
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 3b
PNG
media_image6.png
456
670
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Minatodani fig 2
A person of ordinary skill, when contrasting the plain meaning of “axle” to applicant’s disclosure would consider the main difference is the single rod axle at the center of the wheel, and not eccentric to the center of the wheel. However, none of these features are claimed.
As applicant has noted, Minatodani fig 2 shows the supports on either side of roller 50, where a portion of each end cap extends into the interior of the roller. Minatodani does not include an axle shaft through the center of the roller that would meet the plain meaning of “axle.” Applicant’s figure 5 shows the claimed support arms that also extend into the interior of the claimed rollers. Under a BRI interpretation of the limitation “axle,” that agrees with applicant’s figures, Minatodani’s supports on either side of the roller are so similar to applicant’s supporting arms (Applicant’s fig 5), that the supports can not be reasonably excluded by the term “axle.” Excluding Minatodani’s support, would require further structural limitations.
Applicant does not include further arguments regarding claim 7.
Applicant argues that claim 13 is allowable. Applicant cancelled claim 13, and incorporated the subject matter into the allowed claim 10. Cancelled claim 13 was not made allowable because it was cancelled. However, claim 10 incorporating the subject matter of the previous claim 13 and 14 was allowed. Claim 15 was also allowed as dependent on allowed claim 10.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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 on (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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746