DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments (Filed 15 December 2025) to claims, drawings and specification have been entered, which provide antecedent basis in the specification for the word “base,” and label the base in the drawings. As such applicant has addressed the objections and 112 rejections of the previous office action. All previous objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments have introduced new material subject to 112 rejections.
Claims 28-42 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites a state where “when the cover is closed” there is “movement of the chassis.” Movement of the chassis when the cover is closed constitutes new matter, because it was not described in the specification as originally filed. Therefore claim 30 is rejected for new matter.
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 30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites “when the cover is closed, the first portion of the lock is rotatable about an axis parallel to movement of the chassis.” However, applicant has disclosed that when the cover is closed, that chassis movement is restricted (Applicant’s par 0008, 0039). Therefore, movement of the chassis is not possible when the cover is closed, and it is unclear what state of the device applicant is claiming, because the cover being closed and the chassis still moving is a contradiction. Therefore, it is unclear what applicant intends as the limits of the claims, and the claim is rejected for indefiniteness. For the limited purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to “parallel to an axis along which the chassis is configured to move when opening and closing the cover.”
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.
Claims 28-29, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stemple (US 2009/012994).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Stemple fig 1
Regarding claim 28, Stemple discloses a peristaltic pump (abstract, fig 1) comprising:
a chassis (occlusion bed 20, par 0023) defining one of a male connecting portion (first of two alternatives; outer edge of 20 set in sliding track of housing 12, par 0024) and a female connecting portion (second of two alternatives);
a chassis retainer (housing 12) comprising the other of one of a male connecting portion (first of two alternatives) and a female connecting portion (second of two alternatives, the outer walls of housing 12 holding the sliding track for occlusion bed 20, par 0024), the chassis and the chassis retainer cooperating to form a cavity (space for rotor 14), the chassis retainer further comprising a first portion of a lock distal the chassis (recesses 24 for ball detents 22, par 0023; under a BRI detents retain the cover in position, which meets the plain meaning of “lock”),
a rotor (14) disposed within the cavity such that tubing (fig 2, 28) can be held between the rotor and the chassis and/or the chassis retainer (fig 2 shows a tubing path where tubing is between the rotor and both the chassis and chassis retainer);
a cover (16) comprising a second portion of a lock (ball detents 22, par 0023) configured to interact with the first portion of the lock of the chassis retainer (par 0023), the cover further comprising a first pivot (shaft 18, par 0023), the cover rotatable about the first pivot (door 16 pivots about a shaft 18, par 0023), the second portion of the lock positioned distal the first pivot (ball detents 22 and shaft 18 are at opposite ends of door 16) and
a linkage coupling the cover to the chassis (fig 4a, linkage 18, 30, 32), the linkage comprising an arm (pinon gear 30, where each tooth is considered an arm), the arm comprising a first end (outer radial end of teeth) and a second end (end of teeth closer to shaft 18),
wherein when opening the cover (par 0023), the arm pivots such that the chassis moves away from the chassis retainer to widen the cavity (par 0010, 0024),
wherein when closing the cover (par 0023), the arm pivots such that the chassis moves toward the chassis retainer (par 0010, 0024), and
wherein when closed the interaction of the one of the male connecting portion and the female connecting portion on the chassis and the other of the male connecting portion and the female connecting portion on the chassis retainer restricts movement of the chassis with respect to the chassis retainer (the occlusion bed 20 slides within the track of housing 12, par 0024, fig 1 depicts the track on 12 as extending over the top of the occlusion bed, which would restrict movement of the chassis to what is allowed by the track) and wherein when closed the interaction of the first portion of the lock on the chassis retainer and the second portion of the lock on the cover restricts further movement of the chassis with respect to the chassis retainer (detent 22 and recess 24 prevent the cover 16 from opening, and thereby prevents sliding that occurs due to the cover 16 opening, par 0023) and the lock is movable between a locked position and an unlocked position (the detent 22 moves with the cover 16 between a locked/closed position and an open/unlocked position).
Regarding claim 29, Stemple discloses the peristaltic pump of Claim 28, wherein the first portion of the lock on the chassis retainer comprises one of a male connector and a female connector (male and female connector are claimed as alternatives; chassis retainer 12 has a recess 24 which reasonably is a female connector), and wherein the second portion of the lock on the cover comprises the other of a male connector and a female connector (male and female are claimed alternately; cover 16 has detent 22 which reasonably is a male connector).
Regarding claim 35, Stemple discloses a peristaltic pump (abstract, fig 1) comprising:
a chassis (20) defining one of a male connecting portion and a female connecting portion (male and female are claimed alternately ; outer edge of 20 is a male connecting portion), the chassis further comprising one of a male connecting section and a female connecting section (male and female are claimed alternately; the male connecting section is the part of outer edge 20 in contact with the sliding track of housing 12);
a chassis retainer (housing 12) comprising the other of one of a male connecting portion and a female connecting portion (male and female are claimed alternately; the outer walls of housing 12 is a female connecting portion), the chassis and the chassis retainer cooperating to form a cavity (12 and 20 enclose a cavity for rotor 14),
a rotor (14) disposed within the cavity such that tubing (fig 2, 28) can be held between the rotor and the chassis and/or the chassis retainer (fig 2 depicts this arrangement);
a cover (16);
a linkage coupling the cover to the chassis (fig 4a, linkage 18, 30, 32), the linkage comprising an arm (pinion gear 30, where each tooth is considered an arm), the arm comprising a first end (outer radial edge of each tooth) and a second end (base of each tooth closer to shaft 18); and
a base (bottom of cover 16) comprising the other of a male connecting section and a female connecting section (male and female are claimed alternately; detent 22 is a male connecting section),
wherein when opening the cover (par 0023), the arm pivots such that the chassis moves away from the chassis retainer to widen the cavity (par 0010, 0024),
wherein when closing the cover (par 0023), the arm pivots such that the chassis moves toward the chassis retainer (par 0010, 0024), and
wherein when closed the interaction of the one of the male connecting portion and the female connecting portion on the chassis and the other of the male connecting portion and the female connecting portion on the chassis retainer restricts movement of the chassis with respect to the chassis retainer (the occlusion bed 20 slides within the track of housing 12, par 0024, fig 1 depicts the track on 12 as extending over the top of the occlusion bed, which would restrict movement of the chassis to what is allowed by the track) and
wherein when closed the interaction of the one of the male connecting section and the female connecting section on the chassis and the other of the male connecting section and the female connecting section on the base restricts further movement of the chassis with respect to the chassis retainer (detent 22 on base and recess 24 on the chassis prevent the cover 16 from opening, and thereby prevents sliding that occurs due to the cover 16 opening, par 0023).
Regarding claim 36, Stemple discloses the peristaltic pump of Claim 35, further comprising a fastener (detent 22 meets the plain meaning of fastener) configured to couple the cover to the chassis (par 0023).
Regarding claim 37, Stemple discloses the peristaltic pump of Claim 36, wherein the fastener is configured to couple the chassis to the base (detent 22 couples the base of the cover to the chassis thereby keeping the cover closed, par 0023).
Regarding claim 38, Stemple disclose the peristaltic pump of Claim 37, wherein the fastener is configured to extend through the cover, the base, and the chassis. In the above interpretation, the base is considered the bottom portion of the cover. Therefore, fig 1 depicts detent 22 as a ball extending into the base; since the base is a component of the cover, detent 22 extending into the base also extends into the cover. Fig 1 also depicts a recess 24 for the detent 22 in the chassis; the recess also meets the plain meaning of extending through the chassis. Furthermore, when the door is closed, detent 22 extends into the recess 24, which indicates the detent 22 also extends into the chassis. Therefore, detent 22 can reasonably meet the claim limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemple in view of Kyle (US 2015/0191684).
Regarding claim 30, Stemple discloses the peristaltic pump of Claim 28. Stemple is silent on when the cover is closed, the first portion of the lock is rotatable about an axis [[parallel to movement of the chassis]] [parallel to an axis along which the chassis is configured to move when opening and closing the cover].
Stemple does not meet this limitation because under Stemple the first portion of the lock is the recess of the detent; while the ball of the detent is the second portion of the lock.
Nevertheless, switching the recess and spring loaded ball between the cover and chassis of Stemple is obvious as a reversal of parts. A reversal of parts is obvious when the claimed elements are a mere reversal of what is disclosed in the prior art (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); See MPEP 2144.04(V)). In this case, Stemple teaches a latching mechanism comprising ball detents (22) on a cover and a recess (24) on a chassis (par 0028). An arrangement which places the ball detents (22) on a chassis and a recess (24) on the cover is a mere reversal of the prior art positions and therefore an obvious reversal of parts. Furthermore, reasonably the ball detent would function equally well in either arrangement because the spring loaded ball detent is dependent on spring force for operation, where said spring force is independent of the ball detent position on the peristaltic pump housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the placement of the spring loaded ball and recess of the detent of Stemple.
Stemple is silent about the ball portion of detent being rotatable about an axis parallel to movement of the chassis.
Kyle teaches a spring loaded ball bearing detent (par 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ball of the spring-loaded detent of Stemple as a rotatable ball bearing as taught by Kyle in order to reduce friction related to the use of the spring loaded ball detent, thereby preventing wear of the locking/latching mechanism and increasing longevity of Stemple.
Claim 31-34 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemple in view of Jarnagin (US 2013/0115120).
Regarding claim 31, Stemple discloses the peristaltic pump of Claim 28, wherein the linkage comprises a second pivot secured relative to the cover (secured via shaft 18, par 0023).
Stemple is silent on the first pivot secured relative to the chassis.
Stemple instead shows a rack and pinon style linkage which has a single pinion. Nevertheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rack and pinion linkage is an equivalent to a pivot arm / pitman arm linkage in the mechanical arts.
Jarnagin teaches an analogous peristaltic pump with a linkage (par 0009) comprises a first pivot (fig 7, 180) secured relative to the chassis (occlusion bed 130, par 0039) and a second pivot (182) secured relative to the cover (140), where the bar linkage (linkage bars 176, 178, par 0053) is a replacement for a prior art rack and pinion linkage (par 0009-0010).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the rack and pinion linkage of Stemple with the bar linkage of Jarnagin as an obvious variation of a linkage for sliding an occlusion bed when opening and closing a cover (par 0009-0010, 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 32, Stemple in view of Jarnagin makes obvious the peristaltic pump of Claim 31, wherein when opening and closing the cover (Jarnagin, par 0009, 0053-0054), the cover pivots about the second pivot (181, id.), causing the arm to pivot about the first pivot of the linkage (180, id).
Regarding claim 33, Stemple in view of Jarnagin make obvious the peristaltic pump of Claim 32, wherein the first end of the arm is positioned at the first pivot of the linkage (Jarnagin, pivot 180 is at a first end of linkage bar 178, par 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 34, Stemple in view of Jarnagin make obvious the peristaltic pump of Claim 33, wherein when opening the cover, the cover is configured to contact the second end of the arm (Jarnagin, fig 7, second end of linkage bar 178 nearer pivot 181 which is on cover 140) to cause the arm to pivot about the first pivot of the linkage (arm pivots around 180, par 0053).
Regarding claim 39, Stemple discloses the peristaltic pump of Claim 35, wherein the linkage comprises a second pivot secured relative to the cover (secured via shaft 18, par 0023).
Stemple is silent on the first pivot secured relative to the chassis.
Stemple instead shows a rack and pinon style linkage which has a single pinion. Nevertheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rack and pinion linkage is an equivalent to a pivot arm / pitman arm linkage in the mechanical arts.
Jarnagin teaches an analogous peristaltic pump with a linkage (par 0009) comprises a first pivot (fig 7, 180) secured relative to the chassis (occlusion bed 130, par 0039) and a second pivot (182) secured relative to the cover (140), where the bar linkage (linkage bars 176, 178, par 0053) is a replacement for a prior art rack and pinion linkage (par 0009-0010).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the rack and pinion linkage of Stemple with the bar linkage of Jarnagin as an obvious variation of a linkage for sliding an occlusion bed when opening and closing a cover (par 0009-0010, 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 40, Stemple in view of Jarnagin makes obvious the peristaltic pump of Claim 39, wherein when opening and closing the cover (Jarnagin, par 0009, 0053-0054), the cover pivots about the second pivot (181, id.), causing the arm to pivot about the first pivot of the linkage (180, id).
Regarding claim 41, Stemple in view of Jarnagin make obvious the peristaltic pump of Claim 40, wherein the first end of the arm is positioned at the first pivot of the linkage (Jarnagin, pivot 180 is at a first end of linkage bar 178, par 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 42, Stemple in view of Jarnagin make obvious the peristaltic pump of Claim 41, wherein when opening the cover, the cover is configured to contact the second end of the arm (Jarnagin, fig 7, second end of linkage bar 178 nearer pivot 181 which is on cover 140) to cause the arm to pivot about the first pivot of the linkage (arm pivots around 180, par 0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the office has not cited to the newly claimed features.
Examiner has accordingly modified the rejection to address the newly claimed features.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746