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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structure of claims 3 and 18-19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Each of claims 3 and 18 requires a magnetoactive anvil for compressing the flexible conduit; However, each depends from a claim (1, 15) that include a magnetically actuated conduit compressed via a magnetic field. The drawings do not include an embodiment in which both the conduit and a magnetic anvil are simultaneously actuated to compress the conduit. Claim 19 requires a ring-shaped electromagnet; the drawings do not show a ring-shaped magnet in an embodiment sharing the limitations of claim 15 (current FIG. 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1, 15 and 20-21 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 1, a system configured to pump fluid through a flexible conduit by applying magnetic fields to a magnetoactive elastomer (10; FIG. 1 and FIG. 5A-B) configured to compress cavities of the flexible conduit in response to the magnetic fields (paragraphs 73 and 81), 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 magnetoactive elastomer compressing the first cavity in response to the first magnetic field (paragraphs 73 and 81); a second electromagnet (14b…) operable to pump the fluid through a second cavity of the flexible conduit by repeatedly producing a second magnetic field in a second sequence, the magnetoactive elastomer compressing the second cavity in response to the second magnetic field (paragraphs 73 and 81); and a third electromagnet (14c…) operable to pump the fluid through a third cavity of the flexible conduit by repeatedly producing a third magnetic field in a third sequence, the magnetoactive elastomer compressing the third cavity in response to the third magnetic field (paragraphs 73 and 81);
limitations from claim 15, a system comprising: a flexible conduit that includes magnetoactive elastomer (10; FIG. 1 and FIG. 13A-B) that forms differently aligned magnetic domains (12 on the top/bottom and side; one oriented to push/pull horizontally and one oriented to push/pull vertically) configured to compress the flexible conduit by moving together in response to a magnetic field and to open the flexible conduit in response to a polarity reversal of the magnetic field (paragraph 81);
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 (paragraphs 73 and 81);
limitations from claim 21, wherein the elastomer is further configured to open the flexible conduit by moving away from an anvil (14) in response to the magnetic field (paragraphs 73 and 81);
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) 17-18 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 Morgan et al (US Patent No. 7,397,166).
Castleman teaches linear actuation of the tube (10) using magnetic areas (12), but does not teach spaced active and inactive sections;
Morgan teaches a reactive tubing (14) acted on by actuators (24-27) to sequentially constrict the tube and move fluid therethrough (FIG. 1; C. 4 Lines 32-43); and wherein the tube is actuated at spaced longitudinal locations (see FIG. 1, the inactive gaps between actuators 24-27);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to actuate the tube of Castleman at chosen locations along the tube, such as longitudinally spaced locations as taught by Morgan, as a matter of design choice in order to control the flow of fluid through the tube (for example by providing larger pockets of fluid between each constriction point and thus changing the pulsing of fluid output.
Regarding claim 18:
Castleman teaches an anvil (magnets 14 act as an anvil) does not teach a magnetoactive anvil;
Morgan teaches cuffs (24-27) that are actuated via switches (28-31) that function as anvils acting on the tube (14);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the tubing of Castleman using/substituting known structures, such as the anvils (cuffs) taught by Morgan, as a matter of design choice to reach an expected result (i.e. the constriction of the conduit).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10, and 15 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).
Morgan teaches:
limitations from claim 1, 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 claim 1, 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);
Morgan further teaches:
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);
Conrad further teaches:
limitations from claim 5, further including: the flexible conduit, the flexible conduit including the magnetoactive elastomer, the magnetoactive elastomer forming differently aligned magnetic domains configured to constrict the flexible conduit by moving together in the response to a magnetic field and to open the flexible conduit in response to a polarity reversal of the magnetic field (see paragraphs 13-14 teaching the use of magnetic/electrical fields to act on polarized particles of the elastomer);
limitations from claim 2, wherein the magnetoactive elastomer does not retain a magnetic field after an external magnetic field is removed (see paragraph 34 in which the magnetic fields are selectively produced when solenoids are actuated);
Regarding Claim 15:
Morgan teaches:
limitations from claim 15, a system comprising: a flexible conduit (14) that includes an elastomer (14) that forms differently aligned magnetic domains configured to compress the flexible conduit by moving together in response to a electric field and to open the flexible conduit in response to a polarity reversal of the electric field (C. 4 Lines 32-43; the tube 14 is an electroactive polymer, acted on by electric stimulus selectively provided by actuators 28-31 to open and close the conduit);
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 claim 15, 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. In order for the tube to constrict as shown in FIG. 1 of Morgan, the polarity of the magnetism of the tube at points opposite one another would necessarily be aligned to interact with the field in a desired direction when a field is applied);
Claim(s) 4 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) as applied to claim 4, above, and in further view of Irvin et al (US Patent No. 4,954,046).
Regarding claim 4:
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 soft anvil (46) distinct from a conduit (16) is actuated (via fingers 30) to compress the 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 soft 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 and pump components (C. 5 Lines 7-13 of Irvin);
Claim(s) 16 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Toonder et al (US PGPub No. 2008/0170936).
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).
Claim(s) 6 and 19 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) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Humberg (US Patent No. 10,428,808).
Neither Morgan nor Conrad teaches that the components producing the electric/magnetic fields are ring-shaped;
However, the use of ring-shaped magnets as actuators is known as taught by Humburg; Humburg teaches ring-shaped coil actuators (46) about an actuatable conduit (12) passing through the actuator;
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 actuator shape for another, such as the ring-shape taught by Humburg for the actuator of Morgan, as a matter of design choice in order to reach an expected result (i.e. the actuation of a pumping conduit).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgan et al (US Patent No. 7,397,166) in view of Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548).
Morgan teaches:
limitations from claim 11, 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), that forms a first magnetoactive section (24-27) of the flexible conduit and a second magnetoactive section (other of 24-27) of the flexible conduit that is longitudinally separated from the first magnetoactive section by an inactive section of the flexible conduit (see FIG. 1);
Morgan teaches using electroactive polymers actuated by controlled electric energization to sequentially compress the flexible conduit (C. 4 Lines 32-43 and spaced cuffs 24-27), rather than a magnetoactive elastomer actuated by a magnetic field;
Castleman teaches:
limitations from claim 11, a system comprising: a flexible conduit that includes a magnetoactive elastomer (10; FIG. 1 and FIG. 5A-B), that forms a first magnetoactive section (12) of the flexible conduit (paragraph 73);
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 Castleman 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).
Castleman further teaches:
limitations from claim 12, the first magnetoactive section and the second magnetoactive section are configured to pump a fluid through the flexible conduit in response to sequences of magnetic fields (paragraph 73 of Castleman and C. 4 Lines 32-43 of Morgan);
Morgan further teaches:
limitations from claim 13, further comprising: a first electromagnet operable to pump a fluid through a first cavity of the flexible conduit by applying a first magnetic field to the first magnetoactive section in a first sequence that is a two phase sequence; and a second electromagnet operable to pump the fluid through a second cavity of the flexible conduit by applying a second magnetic field to the second magnetoactive section in a second sequence that is a four phase sequence (C. 4 Lines 32-43 teaching that actuation of the sections is in succession, and that the frequency and phasing of the actuation is programmable; it would have been obvious to choose actuation patterns that effectively move fluid through the conduit);
Claim(s) 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 Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548) as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and in further view of Irvin et al (US Patent No. 4,954,046).
Regarding claim 14:
Neither Castleman or Morgan teaches 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castleman (US PGPub No. 2024/0200548) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Morgan et al (US Patent No. 7,397,166).
Regarding claim 3:
Castleman teaches an anvil (magnets 14 act as an anvil) does not teach a magnetoactive anvil;
Morgan teaches cuffs (24-27) that are actuated via switches (28-31) that function as anvils acting on the tube (14);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the tubing of Castleman using/substituting known structures, such as the anvils (cuffs) taught by Morgan, as a matter of design choice to reach an expected result (i.e. the constriction of the conduit).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights