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 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.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548).
Castleman teaches:
limitations from claim 15, a system comprising: a flexible conduit (10; FIG. 1 and FIG. 5A-B) that includes a longitudinal magnetoactive strip (12) and a longitudinal inactive strip (bottom portion of tube 10; FIG. 5A-B), wherein the longitudinal magnetoactive strip is configured to constrict the flexible conduit by moving toward the longitudinal inactive strip in response to a magnetic field (paragraph 73);
limitations from claim 17, wherein a first magnetic field compresses a first cavity (13) by moving the longitudinal magnetoactive strip (12) toward an anvil (14);
limitations from claim 19, wherein the flexible conduit (10) includes a magnetoactive elastomer and is operable to constrict in response to the magnetic field (paragraph 22, 66, 73);
limitations from claim 20, wherein the flexible conduit includes a plurality of cavities configured to pump a fluid through the flexible conduit in response to a plurality of magnetic fields applied to the longitudinal magnetoactive strip (magnetic fields provided by electromagnets 14A-J; paragraphs 69, 90);
limitations from claim 21, wherein the longitudinal magnetoactive strip is further configured to open the flexible conduit by moving away from the longitudinal inactive strip in response to the magnetic field (see FIG. 5S in which the conduit is open and FIG. 5B in which the conduit is closed; paragraph 73);
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(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al (US Patent No. 7,397,166) in view of Conrad (US PGPub No. 2014/0017097) in view of Toonder et al (US PGPub No. 2008/0170936).
Morgan teaches:
limitations from claims 1, 11, and 13, a system (FIG. 1) configured to pump fluid through a flexible conduit by applying force to an elastomer (14; C. 4 Lines 32-43; the tube 14 is an electroactive polymer, acted on by actuators 28-31), comprising: a first actuator (30) operable to pump a fluid through a first cavity portion of tubing 14 adjacent cuff 26) of a flexible conduit (14) by repeatedly compressing the first cavity in a first sequence (C. 4 Lines 32-43); a second actuator (29) operable to pump the fluid through a second cavity (the portion of tubing 14 adjacent cuff 25) of the flexible conduit by repeatedly compressing the second cavity in a second sequence (C. 4 Lines 32-43); and a third actuator (28) operable to pump the fluid through a third cavity (the portion of tubing 14 adjacent cuff 24) of the flexible conduit by repeatedly compressing the third cavity in a third sequence (C. 4 Lines 32-43);
Morgan teaches using electroactive polymers actuated by controlled electric energization to sequentially compress the flexible conduit (C. 4 Lines 32-43), rather than a magnetoactive elastomer actuated by a magnetic field;
Conrad teaches:
limitations from claims 1, 11, and 13, a pump including a flexible conduit of magnetoactive elastomer including nanoparticles (18; paragraph 38) and actuating electromagnets (M1-n; paragraphs 15, 34); and wherein a first electromagnet (M1) compresses a first cavity (19, 20) by repeatedly producing a first magnetic field to the nanoparticles of the magnetoactive elastomer; the second electromagnet (M2) compresses the second cavity (19, 20) by repeatedly producing a second magnetic field to the nanoparticles of the magnetoactive elastomer; and a third electromagnet (M3) compresses the third cavity by repeatedly producing a third magnetic field to the nanoparticles of the magnetoactive elastomer (see FIG. 3; paragraphs 35-36);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known peristaltic actuation for another, such as the magnetoactive effect of Conrad for the electroactive effect of Morgan, as a matter of simple substitution in order to reach an expected result (i.e. the sequential compression of a conduit to pump fluid). The examiner further notes that Conrad teaches both electric and magnetic actuation of an activatable polymer tubing as known alternatives to one another (see paragraphs 38-39 of Conrad for example);
Conrad teaches the use of nano-scaled magnetic particles to form the magnetorheological elastomer (paragraph 38), but does not explicitly teach superparamagnetic particles;
However, Toonder teaches a pump using magnetorheological material to actuate a conduit (33, 36; paragraph 105), and wherein the material is a superparamagnetic material (paragraph 106);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to choose a particular magnetic nanoparticle material for the conduit of Conrad, such as the superparamagnetic particles taught by Toonder, as a matter of design choice in order to achieve an expected result (i.e. the selectively actuatable constriction of the conduit). Toonder further teaches that superparamagnetic particles may reduce power consumption, paragraph 106). The examiner notes that Toonder teaches the alternative use of both standard magnetic particles (ferro-, ferri-) and the superparamagnetic particles (paragraph 106).
Toonder further teaches:
limitations from claim 2, wherein the magnetoactive elastomer does not retain a magnetic field after an external magnetic field is removed (paragraph 106 of Toonder);
Morgan further teaches:
limitations from claim 5, the flexible conduit is formed from the magnetoactive elastomer (C. 4 Lines 65-67 of Morgan teaching an electroactive polymer tube; paragraph 38 of Conrad teaching a magnetoactive elastomer as the tube);
limitations from claim 6, the flexible conduit is formed from the magnetoactive elastomer (C. 4 Lines 65-67 of Morgan teaching an electroactive polymer tube; paragraph 38 of Conrad teaching a magnetoactive elastomer as the tube);
limitations from claim 7, wherein: the flexible conduit includes a first magnetoactive section and a second magnetoactive section that are formed from the magnetoactive elastomer (C. 4 Lines 15-16 teaching forming the conduit from an EAP; formed as a magnetoactive material as per the combination with Conrad); the flexible conduit includes an inactive section between the first magnetoactive section and the second magnetoactive section; and the first magnetoactive section and the second magnetoactive section are operable to constrict in response to a magnetic field (C. 4 Lines 17-19 teaching that the EAP portions are spaced, it follows that inactive portions are therebetween);
limitations from claim 8, wherein: the first sequence is a two-phase sequence that includes a first cavity filling phase and a first cavity emptying phase; the second sequence includes a second cavity filling phase and a second cavity emptying phase that pushes the fluid into the first cavity; and the second cavity emptying phase coincides at least in part with the first cavity filling phase (see C. 4 Lines 20-43; the cavities of conduit 14 at each of the actuators 24-27 is increase in volume to fill fluid and subsequently decreased in volume to empty fluid);
limitations from claim 10, further including: a pump controller (36) operatively coupled to the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet, wherein the pump controller is operable to control the first magnetic field, the second magnetic field, and the third magnetic field (see C. 4 Lines 32-38 of Morgan; the actuators are embodied as electromagnets per the combination with Conrad);
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al (US Patent No. 7,397,166) in view of Conrad (US PGPub No. 2014/0017097) in view of Toonder et al (US PGPub No. 2008/0170936) as applied to claims 1, 3, 11, and 13, above, and in further view of Irvin et al (US Patent No. 4,954,046).
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Morgan and Conrad do not teach a magnetoactive anvil operable to compress the flexible conduit, instead directly acting on the conduit via an electromagnetic force;
However, Irvin teaches a peristaltic pump (18; FIG. 3) wherein a flexible anvil (46) is actuated (via fingers 30) to compress a flexible conduit (16) against an anvil (28);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a flexible anvil to assist in actuating the conduit of Morgan (while the anvil 46 of Irvin is acted on by fingers, Morgan/Conrad teaches a electromagnetic/magnetic drive and therefore it follows that the anvil would also be magnetically driven), such as is taught by the membrane (46) of Irvin, in order to provide additional strength to the conduit and to act as a further barrier within the fluid passages.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Toonder et al (US PGPub No. 2008/0170936).
Castleman teaches the use of magnetic nanoparticles (paragraph 68, 93), but does not explicitly teach superparamagnetic nanoparticles;
However, Toonder teaches a pump using magnetorheological material to actuate a conduit (33, 36; paragraph 105), and wherein the material is a superparamagnetic material (paragraph 106);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to choose a particular magnetic nanoparticle material for the conduit of Castleman, such as the superparamagnetic particles taught by Toonder, as a matter of design choice in order to achieve an expected result (i.e. the selectively actuatable constriction of the conduit). Toonder further teaches that superparamagnetic particles may reduce power consumption, paragraph 106). The examiner notes that Toonder teaches the alternative use of both standard magnetic particles (ferro-, ferri-) and the superparamagnetic particles (paragraph 106).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Irvin et al (US Patent No. 4,954,046).
Regarding claim 18:
Conrad does not teach a magnetoactive anvil operable to compress the flexible conduit, instead directly acting on the conduit via an electromagnetic force;
However, Irvin teaches a peristaltic pump (18; FIG. 3) wherein a flexible anvil (46) is actuated (via fingers 30) to compress a flexible conduit (16) against an anvil (28);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a flexible anvil to assist in actuating the conduit of Castleman (while the anvil 46 of Irvin is acted on by fingers, Castleman teaches a magnetic drive and therefore it follows that the anvil would also be magnetically driven), such as is taught by the membrane (46) of Irvin, in order to provide additional strength to the conduit and to act as a further barrier between the fluid passage and the drive.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548) in view of Toonder et al (US PGPub No. 2008/0170936).
Castleman teaches:
limitations from claims 1, 11, and 13, a system (FIG. 1) configured to pump fluid through a flexible conduit by applying magnetic fields (via electromagnets 14) to a magnetoactive elastomer (10; FIG. 5A-B) that includes magnetic nanoparticles embedded in a polymer matrix (paragraph 66, 68, 93), the magnetoactive elastomer configured to compress cavities of the flexible conduit in response to the magnetic fields (magnetic fields provided by electromagnets 14A-J; paragraphs 69-70, 90), the system comprising: a first electromagnet (14A) operable to pump a fluid through a first cavity of the flexible conduit by repeatedly producing a first magnetic field in a first sequence, the magnetic nanoparticles compressing the first cavity in response to the first magnetic field (paragraphs 69-70, 90; FIG. 17A-C); a second electromagnet (14B) operable to pump the fluid through a second cavity of the flexible conduit by repeatedly compressing producing a second magnetic field in a second sequence, the magnetic nanoparticles compressing the second cavity in response to the second magnetic field (paragraphs 69-70, 90; FIG. 17A-C); and a third electromagnet (14C) operable to pump the fluid through a third cavity of the flexible conduit by compressing producing a third magnetic field in a third sequence, the magnetic nanoparticles compressing the third cavity in response to the third magnetic field (paragraphs 69-70, 90; FIG. 17A-C);
Castleman teaches the use of magnetic nanoparticles (paragraph 68, 93), but does not explicitly teach superparamagnetic nanoparticles;
However, Toonder teaches a pump using magnetorheological material to actuate a conduit (33, 36; paragraph 105), and wherein the material is a superparamagnetic material (paragraph 106);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to choose a particular magnetic nanoparticle material for the conduit of Castleman, such as the superparamagnetic particles taught by Toonder, as a matter of design choice in order to achieve an expected result (i.e. the selectively actuatable constriction of the conduit). Toonder further teaches that superparamagnetic particles may reduce power consumption, paragraph 106). The examiner notes that Toonder teaches the alternative use of both standard magnetic particles (ferro-, ferri-) and the superparamagnetic particles (paragraph 106).
Castleman further teaches:
limitations from claim 3, an anvil (14), wherein the superparamagnetic nanoparticles (via the combination with Toonder) compress the first cavity by pressing the magnetoactive elastomer against the anvil (FIG. 5B);
limitations from claim 12, wherein the magnetoactive elastomer (10) is configured as a longitudinal strip (12; FIG. 5A; paragraph 73) on one side of the flexible conduit (FIG. 5A-B);
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548) in view of Toonder et al (US PGPub No. 2008/0170936) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 13 above, and in further view of Irvin et al (US Patent No. 4,954,046).
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Conrad does not teach a magnetoactive anvil operable to compress the flexible conduit, instead directly acting on the conduit via an electromagnetic force;
However, Irvin teaches a peristaltic pump (18; FIG. 3) wherein a flexible anvil (46) is actuated (via fingers 30) to compress a flexible conduit (16) against an anvil (28);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a flexible anvil to assist in actuating the conduit of Castleman (while the anvil 46 of Irvin is acted on by fingers, Castleman teaches a magnetic drive and therefore it follows that the anvil would also be magnetically driven), such as is taught by the membrane (46) of Irvin, in order to provide additional strength to the conduit and to act as a further barrier between the fluid passage and the drive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see Page 8 of the response) that Conrad does not teach superparamagnetic particles. The examiner agrees, but does not rely on Conrad to teach superparamagnetic materials.
Applicant further argues (Page 9-10 of the response) that Conrad and Toonder cannot be combined. Applicant argues that Conrad teaches away from Toonder because Conrad teaches “magnetically polarized particles embedded therein”. Further applicant states “it is impossible for any material to meet Conrad’s magnetic polarization requirement and Toonder’s “not have a remnant magnetic field” requirement.”. Initially, the examiner notes that the rejection does not aim to combine a standard magnetoactive material with a superparamagnetic material, but instead aims to substitute one for the other. Therefore, whether the two can be combined is not relevant to the combination. The examiner also disagrees that Conrad includes a requirement that the nanoparticles be magnetically polarized; while Conrad teaches the use of polarized magnetic particles to form a magnetoactive material, there is no language requiring this to be the case, in fact Conrad teaches that electrorheological materials may also be used (paragraph 39). The examiner maintains the rejection in view of Conrad and Toonder; while Conrad may teach a different magnetic material, at no point does the disclosure teach away from superparamagnetic materials.
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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746