DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 21 May 2024. Claims 1 – 20 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 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 9 – 11 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.
In Re Claim 9, the limitation “a translator screw and a translator rod” in Lines 2 – 3 is a second positive recitation of the same limitation in Lines 1 – 2, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the translator screw and the translator rod-- will be assumed instead in Lines 2 – 3.
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 – 3, 5, 7, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Buckberry discloses an apparatus (Figures 4a, 4b; paragraphs [0038],[0039],[0040],[0050],[0051]), comprising: a roller (70a); and a crank-and-rocker mechanism (32 is the crank, 58a is the rocker) connected to the roller (70a) by a connecting arm (48).
In Re Claim 2, Buckberry discloses an apparatus (Figures 4a, 4b; paragraphs [0038],[0039],[0040],[0050],[0051]), comprising: a roller (70a); a crank (32); a rocker (58a); and a connecting arm (48) configured so as to join the crank (32) to the rocker (58a) and the roller (70a).
In Re Claim 3, Buckberry discloses a roller arm (56a) configured so as to join the roller (70a) to the connecting arm (48).
In Re Claim 5, Buckberry discloses that the connecting arm (48) is clearly a component of the crank-and-rocker mechanism (32, 58a).
In Re Claim 7, Buckberry discloses that the apparatus further comprises a motor (16/92 is a manual drive; paragraph [0043]) connected to a shaft (74) of the crank (32) in a configuration so that the motor (manual drive) is operable to drive rotation of the crank (32)(paragraph [0044]).
In Re Claim 8, Buckberry discloses that a shaft (60a, 62a) of the rocker (58a) is connected to a shaft (74 is located at 24a) of the crank (32) such that the axis of rotation of the rocker shaft (60, 62a) is held stationary relative to the axis of rotation of the crank shaft (74 is located at 24a) during rotation of the crank (32) and rocker (58a) as shown in Figures 4c and 4d which show displaced positions of the crank and rocker (24a and 60a are held stationary in Figure 4c and in Figure 4d).
In Re Claim 16, the apparatus of Buckberry is a peristaltic pump where fluid flow is generated by pinching the tubing that the fluid flows through, therefore it configured to transport fluids without any component of the apparatus being wetted by the fluid.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evers (WIPO document WO 2007021175 A1, Machine Translation provided) as evidenced (MPEP 2112, Section IV) by Kawakita (PG Pub US 20050192135 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Evers discloses an apparatus (Figures 7 – 12; Translation Page 3, Lines 22 – 48, Page 4, Lines 35 – 41), comprising: a roller (53); and a crank-and-rocker mechanism (54, 55, 91; 54 is the crank, 55 is the connecting arm and 91 is the “rocker”; 91 is a slider of a crank-slider mechanism – the slider 91 can be broadly interpreted as the claimed “rocker” because a slider is a rocker with infinite radius as evidenced by Kawakita in paragraph [0030] and Figures 1, 2; see also paragraph [0009]) connected to the roller (53) by a connecting arm (55).
In Re Claim 2, Evers discloses an apparatus (Figures 7 – 12; Translation Page 3, Lines 22 – 48, Page 4, Lines 35 – 41), comprising: a roller (53); a crank (54); a rocker (91 is a slider of a crank-slider mechanism – the slider 91 can be broadly interpreted as the claimed “rocker” because a slider is a rocker with infinite radius as evidenced by Kawakita in paragraph [0030] and Figures 1, 2; see also paragraph [0009]); and a connecting arm (55) configured so as to join the crank (53) to the rocker (91 via cam 95) and the roller (53 via the roller arm 56).
In Re Claim 3, Evers discloses a roller arm (56) configured so as to join the roller (53) to the connecting arm (55).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evers (WIPO document WO 2007021175 A1, Machine Translation provided) as evidenced (MPEP 2112, Section IV) by Kawakita (PG Pub US 20050192135 A1) in view of Chang (US Patent 5,950,314 A).
In Re Claim 4, Evers and Kawakita disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and Evers further discloses a hinge (57) configured so as to join the roller arm (56) to the connecting arm (55); although a spring (58) is disclosed, it appears to be separate from the hinge (57), therefore Evers and Kawakita do not disclose that the hinge “comprises” a spring.
However, Chang discloses a rocker mechanism (14, 17, 18; Figure 4; Column 3, Lines 21 – 29) with a hinge (18) for connecting arms (14) and (17), that comprises a torsion spring (21).
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 substitute the tension spring (58) of Evers with the torsion spring (21) of Chang because it is only a matter of substituting one type of spring with another type of spring, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). Note that Chang makes reference to a torsion spring on Page 3, Lines 40 – 43 of the Translation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1) in view of Fitter (US Patent 3,875,970 A).
In Re Claim 6, Buckberry discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose that the roller has a wedge shape.
However, Fitter discloses a roller (17, 18; Column 1, Lines 30 – 32) that has a wedge shape as shown in Figure 2.
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 form the roller of Buckberry such that it has a wedge shape as taught by Fitter because the pressing force of the roller on the tube is gradually reduced from the center portion towards the opposite sides, which reduces stresses in the elastic tube walls at the folded tube edges increasing pump performance and/or life of the elastic tube.
Claim(s) 9 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1) in view of Kemnitz (US Patent 3,340,817 A).
In Re Claim 9, Buckberry discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, but it does not disclose a translator screw.
However, Kemnitz discloses a motor (27) driven peristaltic pump rotor (31), and a translator mechanism (43, 45) that separates the tube holder/cartridge (33, 41) from the motor/pump combination (27, 31); (Column 2, Lines 21 – 42; Column 3, Lines 25 – 37; Figures 2, 3). Note that the word “connected to”, when broadly interpreted allows for intermediate structural elements between the translator screw and the shaft of the rocker. The translator mechanism of Kemnitz discloses a translator screw (45) and a translator rod (43); wherein the shaft (30) of the peristaltic pump rotor (31) is connected to the translator screw (45) and the translator rod (43) such that the axis of rotation of the shaft (30) is held stationary and parallel relative to a central axis along the length of the translator screw (45) and a central axis along the length of the translator rod (43) (since the screw is merely an extension of the rod).
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 modify the drive motor / peristaltic pump rotor (10) of Buckberry to incorporate the translator screw/rod of Kemnitz for the purpose of separating the tube holder/cartridge from the motor / pump combination so that the rotor can be replaced with one of suitable size for the desired application (Column 3, Lines 48 – 66 of Kemnitz). Note that in the modified apparatus, the shaft of the rocker of Buckberry is parallel to the axis of rotation, and the axis of rotation of Kemnitz is parallel to the axis of the screw / rod.
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Kemnitz discloses a motor (65, the motor is the means by which the wheel is rotated; Column 2, Lines 47 – 48) connected to the translator screw (45) in a configuration so that the motor is operable to drive rotation of the translator screw (Column 2, Line 48: “knurled wheel 65 by which the shaft may be rotated”).
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and the assembled apparatus of Kemnitz discloses a carriage (41; Column 2, Lines 31 – 35) connecting the shaft (30) of the rotor the translator screw (45) and the translator rod (43). In the modified apparatus, the shaft (30) of Kemnitz is part of the rotor which would be connected to the rocker shaft of Buckberry. Note that the word “connects”, when broadly interpreted allows for intermediate structural elements (besides the carriage) between the translator screw and the shaft of the rocker.
Claim(s) 12 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1) in view of Lum (PG Pub US 20030143754 A1).
In Re Claims 12 – 15, Buckberry discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is capable of fluid flow resolution of less than or equal to 10 microliters.
However, paragraphs [0011] and [0012] of Lum discloses that peristaltic pump is capable of fluid flow resolution of 1 – 5 microliters.
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 configure the peristaltic pump of Buckberry such that it is capable of fluid flow resolution of less than or equal to 10 microliters as taught by Lum in order to meet a given usage requirement.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1) in view of Adams (PG Pub US 20210369954 A1).
In Re Claims 17, Buckberry discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is configured such that each pump cycle of the apparatus transports greater than or equal to 1 microliter.
However, paragraph [0067] of Adams discloses a peristaltic pump that is capable of delivering quantities of fluid delivery per rotation or the “packet size” (i.e. the claimed transportation amount per pump cycle) of fluid being delivered to be 13 microliters and is in the claimed range.
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 configure the peristaltic pump of Buckberry so that each pump cycle transports 13 microliters as taught by Adams because it is only a matter of selecting/designing the appropriate delivery volumetric rate for the apparatus suited towards its application and is therefore within the capability of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1) in view of Govyadinov (PG Pub US 20180272340 A1).
In Re Claim 18, Buckberry discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is configured such that each pump cycle of the apparatus transports less than or equal to 10 microliters of fluid.
However, Govyadinov discloses that a peristaltic pump (paragraph [0022]) is capable of delivering a quantity of fluid to be 4 picoliters for each pump cycle (paragraph [0054]), which is in the claimed range (1 picoliter is 10-6 microliters).
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 configure the peristaltic pump of Buckberry so that each pump cycle transports 4 picoliters as taught by Govyadinov because it is only a matter of selecting/designing the appropriate delivery volumetric rate for the apparatus suited towards its application and is therefore within the capability of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckberry (PG Pub US 20150252800 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 4c and 4d of Buckberry
In Re Claims 19 and 20, Figures 4c and 4d of Buckberry disclose a stroke length (double sided arrow) shown in the annotated figures above. The stroke length determines the retracted (Figure 4a) and deployed (Figure 4b) positions of the roller (70a) and, as one of ordinary skill in the art would know, the stroke volume is proportional to the stroke length, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would know to design the stroke length according to the desired stroke volume output, thus establishing the stroke length as a result effective variable. However Buckberry does not disclose that the stroke length is greater than or equal to 10 mm or less than or equal to 20 mm.
Therefore, although Buckberry does not disclose that the stroke length is greater than or equal to 10 mm or less than or equal to 20 mm, 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 configure the stroke length of Buckberry such that it is greater than or equal to 10 mm or less than or equal to 20 mm in order to meet a desired stroke volume because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not being relied upon, it is being made of record because it is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image2.png
668
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Nakajima
Nakajima (Japanese Patent JP S5974387 A, Machine Translation provided) discloses an apparatus (Figure 4; Translation Page 1 Line 52 – Page 2, Line 14), comprising: a roller (13); and a crank-and-rocker mechanism (22, 25, 24; see annotated Figure 4 above; 22 is the crank, 25 is the connecting arm, the shaded portion of 24 is the rocker {arm}) connected to the roller (13) by a connecting arm (25) (because one end of the connecting arm (25) is connected to an end of the roller arm).
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