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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claim 1, cancelled claims 4 – 5; claims 1 – 3, 6 – 11 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Graf et al. does not describe or suggest, among other features, "an exterior cage mounted in free rotation with respect to the roller" or a configuration including "a rotating coupling between the rotating roller and the rotation axis with teeth radial to the axis of rotation"” and concludes “at least these two deficiencies render Graf et al. incapable of supporting a rejection for obviousness”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, examiner maintains one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant in reference to the obviousness rejection Swiss Patent to Graf et al. (CH 707421) in view of European Patent to Russell (EP 2908902), argues “there is no motivation to modify the device described by Graf et al. to include a friction reducing element, because Graf et al. already has one”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains the primary reference identifies friction as an issue and provides a means of overcoming it. Examiner further maintains there are a several means of addressing friction and the secondary reference addresses it by another means. As was noted in the office action, it was a substitution of the one known element for another to obtain predictable result.
Applicant further regarding US Patent to Stice (4,919,563) argues regarding Lovejoy coupling “no discussion of any toothed connection, let alone one incorporating radial teeth”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lovejoy couplings are notoriously well-known method of coupling two shafts for rotational motion.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Lovejoy couplings comprise two radially toothed elements and spider in-between to accommodate misalignment between shaft. These are ubiquitous in their use. The claims does not require direct power transmission between the radial teeth of the driver and the driven couplings. Examiner maintains the primary reference has a driver and a driven shaft and Lovejoy couplings are used very commonly to accommodate for shaft misalignment. Examiner further maintains the claims only require coupling with radial teeth and the combination of references read on all the limitations of the claimed subject matter.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of the previous office action. 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claim 1 is hereby withdrawn.
Based on the foregoing the rejection of the claims 4 and 5 of the previous office action is maintained.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swiss Patent Document to Graf et al. (CH 707421) in view of European Patent to Russell (EP 2908902) in further view of US Patent to Stice (4,919,563).
Regarding claim 1, as far as it is definite, Graf et al. pressure control pinch valve for a single flexible tube comprising a fixed support (24, Fig. 1) working in conjunction with one side of a flexible tube to be controlled, a dynamic pressure arranged on the side opposite the fixed support and capable of pinching the single tube to control the pressure, the dynamic pressure being provided by a roller (16, Fig. 1) rotating around an axis which is eccentric to the center of the roller and provided with a peripheral contact surface exerting a force directly on the tube (14, Fig. 1) so as to gradually compress the tube against the fixed support during a rotation of the roller in the clamping direction and gradually open the tube during a rotation in the release direction capable of pressure regulation of the tube.
Graf et al. do not disclose the fixed support comprising an active surface capable of compressing the tube, said active surface being plane or concave with a width (Lar) equal to or greater than 1.4 times the external diameter DE of the tube. Graf et al. also do not disclose an exterior cage.
However, Russell also teaching an apparatus for pinching a flexible tubing, teaches the fixed support (272, Fig. 2) comprising an active surface capable of compressing the tube (27-F, Fig. 2), said active surface being plane or concave with a width (Lar) equal to the external diameter DE of the tube (27-F, Fig. 2) at rest [para. 15] to avoid undue stress and premature failure. Russell teaches a cage supported by needle bearings (423, Fig. 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by Graf et al. with the dimensions taught by Russell to avoid undue stress and premature failure of the tubing. Further it would obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application have replaced the friction membrane with the cage as a simple substitution of one of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to address unwanted effects of friction during operation.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Graf et al. inherently disclose a drive and a driven shaft. Graf et al. do not explicitly disclose a coupling with radial teeth.
However, coupling drive shaft and driven shaft by means of a coupling with radial teeth is well known as taught by Stice. Stice teaches a coupling (50, Fig. 8) for coupling a motor shaft (51, Fig. 8) and a driven shaft (60, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have adapted the well-known method of coupling motor and driven shaft taught by Stice to the valve disclosed by Graf et al. as a means of coupling shafts that is capable of accommodating shaft misalignment and lessen any vibration effects.
Regarding claim 2, any contact surface length of the fixed support taught by Russell will be meet the flat length or the concave length limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Graf et al. disclose an electric motor (20, Fig. 1) for the pinch valve.
Regarding claims 6 – 7, Graf et al. disclose a flexible tube which inherently resumes its shape after the compression and release of the punching force. Further, Graf et al. disclose fully closed and eccentricity necessarily will have to be claimed dimensions in order for the pinching force to fully close the tube.
Claim 8 – 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swiss Patent Document to Graf et al. (CH 707421) European Patent to Russell (EP 2908902) and in further view of US Patent to Stice (4,919,563) and Applicant admitted prior art.
Regarding claims 8 – 11, Applicant in the specification [para. 71 – 73] discloses a tangential membrane filter, a pump, a BPCV and a closed loop control system for controlling pressure. Applicant notes that manual control of the system is prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have adapted the valve disclosed by Graf et al. to the Applicant admitted prior art as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753