DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 10 November 2025. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 – 11, 14 and 18 are pending and currently being examined.
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Claims 8 and 17 are objected to because their status identifier should be “Withdrawn” instead of “Original”. As explained in the previous office action, these claims are also directed to a non-elected embodiment. Since applicant has not responded to the requirement, the requirement for withdrawal of these two claims is being maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “holder structure” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Repka (WIPO document WO 2016180951 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Repka
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 8 embodiment of Repka discloses a peristaltic pump device (paragraph [0002]) comprising: a casing (although not seen in Figure 8, it is shown in Figure 4 as label “24”; paragraph [0030]) having an accommodating space (although not seen in Figure 8, it is shown in Figure 4 as label “28”; paragraph [0030]); a flexible tube (although not seen in Figure 8, it is shown in Figure 4 as label “T”; paragraph [0030]) disposed within the accommodating space and having a curved tube portion (i.e. portion which engages circumferential surface 26 of raceway 28 during operation); and a roller module (32, 34) rotatably disposed within the accommodating space (28) and surrounded by the flexible tube (“T”) (as shown in Figure 4), the roller module comprising: a holder structure (34) movable relative to the curved tube portion; a roller mechanism (32) rotatably mounted on the holder structure; and an actuating rod (84) movable upward and downward relative to the curved tube portion (“T”), a protruding structure (see annotated figure above) protruding laterally from the holder structure; wherein when the actuating rod (84) moves downward (see annotated figure above), the protruding structure interferes with the actuating rod (84) for moving the holder structure to make the roller mechanism (32) compress the curved tube portion (“T”) by a lateral movement of the holder structure (paragraph [0041]); when the peristaltic pump device is not in use (since 84 does not contact 34 in Figure 8, it shows a configuration when the device is not in use – compare to Figure 2 which shows a configuration where the device is in use because the actuating rod contacts the holder structure), the protruding structure does not interfere with the actuating rod (84) to make the roller mechanism not compress the curved tube portion (this is a manner of operation which does not structurally distinguish over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II; also compare Figure 4 to Figure 5 which demonstrates that in Figure 4 the roller mechanism does not compress the curved tube; as such Figure 8 shows a configuration when the rollers are retracted from the tube).
In Re Claim 2, Repka discloses that the protruding structure has an inclined surface formed thereon; when the actuating rod (84) moves downward, the actuating rod (84) slides along the inclined surface (in a manner shown in Figure 2) for making the roller mechanism (32) compress the curved tube portion (“T”) by the lateral movement of the holder structure (34).
In Re Claim 5, Repka discloses that the holder structure comprises a first holder (label 34 on the left) and a second holder (label 34 on the right) disposed symmetrically relative to the first holder, the roller mechanism (32) comprises a first roller (label 32 on the left) rotatably mounted on the first holder and a second roller (label 32 on the right) rotatably mounted on the second holder; when the actuating rod (84) moves downward, the protruding structure interferes with the holder structure for moving the first holder and the second holder in opposite directions (roller on the left moves to the left, roller on the right moves to the right) to make the first roller and the second roller compress the curved tube portion (“T”) respectively (in order for the apparatus to function as disclosed).
In Re Claim 10, Repka discloses a fluid delivery system (paragraph [0002]) comprising: a peristaltic pump device (Figure 8 embodiment) comprising: an inlet tube portion (which connects to the IV fluid), and an outlet tube portion (which connects to the patient); a fluid source (of IV fluid) connected to the inlet tube portion for providing a fluid (IV fluid); and an output component (that connects to patient) connected to the outlet tube portion for outputting the fluid (IV fluid)(this limitation is met by any conventional peristaltic pump); the fluid flows from the inlet tube portion to the outlet tube portion through the curved tube portion (this is met by any conventional peristaltic pump) via compression of the roller mechanism (32) upon the curved tube portion (“T”). Repka as applied to Claim 1 discloses all the other limitations.
In Re Claim 11, Repka discloses that the protruding structure has an inclined surface formed thereon; when the actuating rod (84) moves downward, the actuating rod (84) slides along the inclined surface (in a manner shown in Figure 2) for making the roller mechanism (32) compress the curved tube portion (“T”) by the lateral movement of the holder structure (34).
In Re Claim 14, Repka discloses that the holder structure comprises a first holder (label 34 on the left) and a second holder (label 34 on the right) disposed symmetrically relative to the first holder, the roller mechanism (32) comprises a first roller (label 32 on the left) rotatably mounted on the first holder and a second roller (label 32 on the right) rotatably mounted on the second holder; when the actuating rod (84) moves downward, the protruding structure interferes with the holder structure for moving the first holder and the second holder in opposite directions (roller on the left moves to the left, roller on the right moves to the right) to make the first roller and the second roller compress the curved tube portion (“T”) respectively (in order for the apparatus to function as disclosed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repka (WIPO document WO 2016180951 A1) in view of Nakajima (Japanese Patent JP S5974387 A, Machine Translation provided).
In Re Claims 9 and 18, Repka discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 respectively, and it further discloses that the actuating rod (84) moves upward to release interference between the protruding structure (of the holder 34) and the actuating rod (84) as shown in Figure 8, but it does not explicitly disclose that the curved tube portion provides a resilient force to return the holder structure to its original position.
However, at least the Figure 4 embodiment of Nakajima disclose that the curved tube portion (2) provides a resilient force to return the roller mechanism (13) and holder structure (24) to its original position (Translation, Page 2, Lines 10 – 12: “According to the retreat mechanism 21 of this embodiment, the rollers 13 are urged in the retreat direction. Since a spring member is not required, the structure is simpler than that of the above-described embodiment, unless the tube 2 used is small in thickness and sufficient restoring force cannot be expected”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to design the tube of Repka to have sufficient size and thickness to provide a resilient force to return the holder structure to its original (un-squeezed) position as taught by Nakajima for the purpose of relieving localized stress on the tube which could lead to plasticizing the tube and introducing permanent deformation over time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746