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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending in the application. Claims 4-11 & 13 are withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 & 12 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “the ring anchor is free to move in the radial direction”, in Lines 18-19, in combination with limitation “the ring anchor is mounted to the housing to secure the ring anchor to the housing whilst allowing reciprocal movement of the ring anchor in the radial direction”, in Lines 17-18, is indefinite. With the amendment to the claim, it appears there was intent to further limit the claim, but it is not clear how the limitation in Lines 18-19 further limits the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Both limitations describe the ability of the ring anchor to move in the radial direction. It is possible Applicant attempted to claim the ring anchor is able to freely move. However, this is not what was claimed, and the phrases “freely move” and “free to move” have very different meanings.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Streicher (WO8805868A2 – see attached translation).
As to Claim 1, Streicher teaches a peristaltic pump (Figure 5) comprising:
a drivable (Paragraph 0052) rotor (26) having (as shown in Figure 5) at least one pressing member (27);
a housing comprising a cylindrical stator (see Figure 5 below, including Element 5) in which (as shown in Figure 5) the rotor (26) is rotatable (as shown in Figures 7/8; Paragraph 0026);
flexible (Paragraph 0038) tubing (24) having an inlet side (the side of 24 immediately under nozzle 20, as viewed in Figure 5) and an outlet side (the side of 24 immediately under nozzle 21, as viewed in Figure 5), the flexible tubing (24) extending circumferentially around (as shown in Figure 5) the stator (see Figure 5 below) against (as shown in Figure 5) an inner wall (the radially inner wall of 5, as viewed in Figure 5);
a radially deformable (as shown in Figures 7/8) ring (43) positioned between (as shown in Figure 5) the rotor (26) and the circumferentially extending flexible tubing (24), the ring (43) being deformable by (as shown in Figure 5) the at least one pressing member (27) upon rotation of (as shown in Figures 7/8) the rotor (26) to compress (Paragraph 0038) the flexible tubing (24) against (as shown in Figure 5) the inner wall (the radially inner wall of 5, as viewed in Figure 5) of the cylindrical stator (see Figure 5 below, including Element 5) to thereby convey liquid along (after reading Paragraph 0038, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude fluid is pumped through tubing 24 during operation of the pump, especially in light of Paragraph 0004 stating the intent of the Streicher invention is to use the structure as a peristaltic pump; the use of a specific fluid is not a patentable limitation; see end of paragraph for clarification) the flexible tubing (24);
wherein the inlet side (the side of 24 immediately under nozzle 20, as viewed in Figure 5) and the outlet side (the side of 24 immediately under nozzle 21, as viewed in Figure 5) of the flexible tubing (24) are arranged side-by-side (as shown in Figure 5) so that the flexible tubing (24) extends in (as shown in Figure 5) a substantially radial direction outwardly away from (the inlet and outlet sides extend radially up, as viewed in Figure 5, for the stator shown in Figure 5 below) the cylindrical stator (see Figure 5 below, including Element 5);
wherein the radially deformable ring (43) includes a ring anchor (37) projecting radially outwardly (as shown in Figure 5) in a radial direction (up, as viewed in Figure 5) from the radially deformable ring (43) and is located between (as shown in Figure 5) the inlet side (the side of 24 immediately under nozzle 20, as viewed in Figure 5) and the outlet side (the side of 24 immediately under nozzle 21, as viewed in Figure 5) of the flexible tubing (24);
characterised in that:
the ring anchor (37) is mounted to (as shown in Figure 5) the housing (see Figure 5 below, including Element 5) to secure (since Figure 5 shows the ring anchor in the housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the ring anchor is secured to the housing) the ring anchor (37) to the housing (see Figure 5 below, including Element 5) whilst allowing reciprocal movement (Paragraphs 0044/0045; as shown in Figures 7/8) of the ring anchor (37) in the radial direction (up and down, as viewed in Figure 5), and the ring anchor (37) is free to move (Paragraphs 0044/0045; as shown in Figures 7/8) in the radial direction (up and down, as viewed in Figure 5).
The intention to use a selected fluid in the pump is not a patentable limitation, as a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; MPEP 2114(II). Also see MPEP 2115.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Streicher Figure 5, Modified by Examiner
As to Claim 2, Streicher teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the ring anchor (37) has a housing engaging protrusion (37 is shown as a radially extending protrusion from the ring anchor 43 in Figure 5) that is reciprocally mounted (as shown in Figures 7/8) within (as shown in Figure 5) a radially extending sub-housing (41) formed as part of (as shown in Figure 5) the housing (see Figure 5 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 3, Streicher teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-2, and continues to teach the sub-housing (41) comprises a slot (see Figure 5 in the Claim 1 rejection above) extending in (as shown in Figure 5) the radial direction (up, as viewed in Figure 5); and the housing engaging protrusion (37) of the ring anchor (43) is mounted through (as shown in Figure 5) the slot (see Figure 5 in the Claim 1 rejection above) to allow reciprocal movement of (as shown in Figures 7/8) the ring anchor (37) in the radial direction (up, as viewed in Figure 5) along a length (see Figure 5 in the Claim 1 rejection above) of the slot (see Figure 5 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streicher, in view of Samaker (U.S. PGPub 2020/0297536).
As to Claim 12, Streicher teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the ring 43 should be constructed of a material which is abrasion resistant in Paragraph 0047. Note – the translation uses the terms “belt” and “band” for Element 43. As such, the “belt” in Paragraph 0047 is the same structure as the “band” used elsewhere in the reference to the refer to Element 43.
However, Streicher is silent on the exact material to be use, so does not explicitly teach the radially deformable ring is formed of polyamide(nylon) (PA), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyoxymethylene(acetal) (POM), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
Samaker describes a similar peristaltic pump, and teaches the radially deformable ring (124) is formed of polyamide, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paragraph 0044), or a thermoplastic elastomer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the ring, as taught by Streicher, from PET, as taught by Samaker, to provide a flexible material (Paragraph 0044).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the ring, as taught by Streicher, from PET, as taught by Samaker, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (1960)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 102 rejection for Claim 1, Applicant argues Streicher does not teach “the ring anchor is free to move in the radial direction”, since Streicher Paragraph 0044 describes tension spring 46 as constantly pulling slider/ring anchor 37 upwards. Examiner disagrees.
It appears Applicant has used the wrong phrase, and meant to use the phrase the anchor is able to freely move. However, this is not what was claimed, and the phrases “freely move” and “free to move” have very different meanings. The phrase “freely move” would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude there is nothing on either end of the ring anchor preventing or inhibiting movement. The phrase “free to move” would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the ring anchor is capable of moving, regardless of any inhibitions.
Since Applicant used the phrase “free to move”, Streicher teaches the claim, as written, since Streicher Paragraphs 0044/0045 teach the ring anchor is able to move in the radial direction.
It should also be noted it does not appear the original disclosure has support for the use of the phrase “freely move”, since elected Species I, shown in Figures 1/3, appear to show ring anchor 30 in contact with slot 60, preventing ring anchor 30 from being able to “freely move” due to friction between respective surfaces of ring anchor 30 and slot 60.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746