DETAILED ACTION
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 2-4, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 2, line 6, “the support member” should be changed to the support portion to reflect the term used throughout the claims. Regarding claim 11, lines 3 and 5, “gripping mechanism is” should be changed to the one or more gripping mechanisms are since one or more gripping mechanisms were previously introduced. Regarding claim 14, line 2, “the gripping mechanism” should be changed to the one or more gripping mechanisms. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means,” and as such are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for effecting a peristaltic pumping action in claims 1-2, 23, and 26-27.
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: a plurality of pressing elements in claims 2-4, 16, 18, and 29, a drive mechanism in claim 4 and 8, a detector in claim 6, one or more gripping mechanisms in claims 11 and 14, and a further plurality of pressing elements in claim 18.
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 § 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “generally corresponds” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally corresponds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the radius of the profiled portion indefinite.
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 1-4, 8, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peissig et al. (DE 102013103223 A1 using machine translation; hereinafter Peissig).
Regarding claim 1, Peissig discloses a linear peristaltic pump [1] for a bioprocessing system, comprising: at least one pair of jaws [2] formed by a first jaw [6, 8, 9] and a second jaw [5, 7], the first jaw [6, 8, 9] being moveable (see spring elements [9]; also see paragraph 0054: “the clamping device 10 also acts alternatively or additionally on the counter bearing 6 and as a result the distance of the squeezing elements 7 from the counter bearing 6 changes”) relative to the second jaw [5, 7] such that the pair of jaws [2] can be moved between an open configuration in which the jaws [2] are spaced apart for receiving a flexible tube [3] therebetween and a closed configuration in which the jaws [2] are brought together so as to retain the tube [3] therebetween; an actuator mechanism [10] configured to control movement of the first jaw [6, 8, 9] relative to the second jaw [5, 7]; and means [6, 7] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action on a fluid contained within the tube [3] when the tube [3] is retained between the pair of jaws [2] in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0002, 0050-0059, and Figure).
Regarding claim 2, Peissig discloses The linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, wherein the means [6, 7] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action comprises: a support portion [6] configured to support the tube [3]; and a plurality of pressing elements [7], each pressing element [7] being moveable relative to the support portion [6] between a first position (paragraph 0052: “maximum extension”), in which the pressing element [7] compresses a portion of tube [3] supported by the support member [6] whereby to restrict the flow of fluid through said portion, and a second position (paragraph 0052: “minimum extension”), in which said portion of tube [3] is not substantially compressed and the flow of fluid is not restricted (paragraph 0052 and Figure).
Regarding claim 3, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 2, wherein at least one of the pressing elements [7] is configured always to be in contact with a tube [3] retained between the jaws [2] when in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0052-0054 and Figure).
Regarding claim 4, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 2, further comprising a drive mechanism [5] for moving the pressing elements [7] individually relative to the support portion [6] so as to effect a peristaltic pumping action on a fluid contained within a tube [3] retained between the jaws [2] (paragraphs 0052-0054 and Figure).
Regarding claim 8, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 4, further comprising a main body (see clamping device [10] housing in Figure) that houses the drive mechanism and/or the actuator mechanism [10], wherein said pair of jaws [2] extends beyond or outside the main body (see clamping device [10] housing in Figure) (paragraph 0054 and Figure).
Regarding claim 11, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, further comprising one or more gripping mechanisms [13] arranged to engage the tube [3], wherein: gripping mechanism [13] is configured to load and/or unload the tube [3] from the pair of jaws [2] when the jaws [2] are in the open configuration; and/or wherein the gripping mechanism [13] is configured to retain the tube [3] so as to inhibit longitudinal motion of the tube [3] through the pair of jaws [2] during a pumping operation (paragraph 0057: “[d]uring the measuring, the clamping device 13 is closed and the pump device 5 is actuated”) (paragraphs 0057-0059 and Figure).
Regarding claim 16, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 2, wherein the support portion [6] is arranged to define the first jaw [6, 8, 9], and the plurality of pressing elements [7] are arranged to define the second jaw [5, 7] (paragraph 0052 and Figure).
Regarding claim 18, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 16, wherein the support portion [6] is defined by a further plurality of pressing elements [9] movable to oppose said plurality of pressing elements [7] of the second jaw [5, 7] (paragraph 0053 and Figure).
Regarding claim 21, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, further comprising a pressure sensor [12] configured to measure the pressure of fluid in a tube [3] secured between the jaws [2] (0056-0059 and Figure).
Regarding claim 25, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, wherein control of the pump [1] is automated (paragraphs 0054-0059).
Regarding claim 26, Peissig discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 25, wherein the actuator mechanism [10] is configured to receive signals from a controller [11] to move the jaws [2] between the open and closed configurations, wherein the controller [11] is further configured to control the means [6, 7] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action to commence pumping once the jaws [2] are in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0054-0059 and Figure).
Regarding claim 27, Peissig discloses a robotic device (i.e., automated device) comprising a robotic end effector (see [1]), wherein the robotic end effector (see [1]) comprises a linear peristaltic pump [1], the linear peristaltic pump [1] comprising: at least one pair of jaws [2] formed by a first jaw [6, 8, 9] and a second jaw [5, 7], the first jaw [6, 8, 9] being moveable (see spring elements [9]; also see paragraph 0054: “the clamping device 10 also acts alternatively or additionally on the counter bearing 6 and as a result the distance of the squeezing elements 7 from the counter bearing 6 changes”) relative to the second jaw [5, 7] such that the pair of jaws [2] can be moved between an open configuration in which the jaws [2] are spaced apart for receiving a flexible tube [3] therebetween and a closed configuration in which the jaws [2] are brought together so as to retain the tube [3] therebetween; an actuator mechanism [10] configured to control movement of the first jaw [6, 8, 9] relative to the second jaw [5, 7]; and means [6, 7] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action on a fluid contained within the tube [3] when the tube [3] is retained between the pair of jaws [2] in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0002, 0050-0059, and Figure).
Regarding claim 29, Peissig discloses a method of performing a peristaltic pumping action on a tube [3], comprising: actuating a plurality of pressing elements [7] independently to compress and release a portion of said tube [3] so as to pump a fluid [4] therethrough, wherein said plurality of pressing elements [7] are arranged in a substantially linear configuration (paragraphs 0050-0059 and Figure).
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 23-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adler et al. (US 2017/0211959 A1; hereinafter Adler).
Regarding claim 1, Adler discloses a linear peristaltic pump [1] for a bioprocessing system, comprising: at least one pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] formed by a first jaw [11, 17] and a second jaw [12], the first jaw [11, 17] being moveable relative to the second jaw [12] such that the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] can be moved between an open configuration in which the jaws [11, 12, 17] are spaced apart for receiving a flexible tube [13] therebetween and a closed configuration in which the jaws [11, 12, 17] are brought together so as to retain the tube [13] therebetween; an actuator mechanism [17] configured to control movement of the first jaw [11, 17] relative to the second jaw [12]; and means [11, 12] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action on a fluid contained within the tube [13] when the tube [13] is retained between the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0054-0067 and Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, wherein the means [11, 12] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action comprises: a support portion [12] configured to support the tube [13]; and a plurality of pressing elements [11], each pressing element [11] being moveable relative to the support portion [12] between a first position (paragraph 0057: “end position”), in which the pressing element [11] compresses a portion of tube [13] supported by the support member [12] whereby to restrict the flow of fluid through said portion, and a second position (paragraph 0057: “home position”), in which said portion of tube [13] is not substantially compressed and the flow of fluid is not restricted (paragraphs 0056-0057, 0069-0073, and Figures 1 and 3-6).
Regarding claim 3, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 2, wherein at least one of the pressing elements [11] is configured always to be in contact with a tube [13] retained between the jaws [11, 12, 17] when in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0056-0057 and Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 2, further comprising a drive mechanism (paragraph 0063: “control unit”) for moving the pressing elements [11] individually relative to the support portion [12] so as to effect a peristaltic pumping action on a fluid contained within a tube [13] retained between the jaws [11, 12, 17] (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 6, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, further comprising a detector (paragraph 0063: “identification of the actor(s) 11 sealing the flexible tube”) to determine whether the tube [13] is received between the jaws [11, 12, 17].
Regarding claim 9, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first jaw [11, 17] and the second jaw [12] comprises a profiled portion (paragraph 0055: “guidance”), such that when the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] is moved into the closed configuration the flexible tube [13] is urged towards a predetermined position within the profiled portion (paragraph 0055: “guidance”) (paragraphs 0015 and 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, further comprising one or more gripping mechanisms [14 and/or 16] arranged to engage the tube [13], wherein: gripping mechanism [14 and/or 16] is configured to load and/or unload the tube [13] from the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] when the jaws [11, 12, 17] are in the open configuration; and/or wherein the gripping mechanism [14 and/or 16] is configured to retain the tube [13] so as to inhibit longitudinal motion of the tube [13] through the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] during a pumping operation (paragraphs 0054, 0058, and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, wherein the means [11, 12] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action is configured to effect an asymmetric peristaltic pumping action (e.g., see Figures 3 and 5) along a length of the tube [13] (paragraphs 0056, 0069-0073, and Figures 3-6).
Regarding claim 24, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 23, wherein the asymmetric peristaltic pumping action (e.g., see Figures 3 and 5) is configured to pinch a portion of the tube [13] quicker than it releases said pinched portion (paragraphs 0069-0073 and Figures 3-6; wherein ninth actor [119] is moved to an intermediate position and remains there for several stages (Figures 3-5)).
Regarding claim 25, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 1, wherein control of the pump [1] is automated (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 26, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 25, wherein the actuator mechanism [17] is configured to receive signals from a controller (paragraph 0063: “control unit”) to move the jaws [11, 12, 17] between the open and closed configurations, wherein the controller (paragraph 0063: “control unit”) is further configured to control the means [11, 12] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action to commence pumping once the jaws [11, 12, 17] are in the closed configuration (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 27, Adler discloses a robotic device [2] comprising a robotic end effector [18], wherein the robotic end effector [18] comprises a linear peristaltic pump [1], the linear peristaltic pump [1] comprising: at least one pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] formed by a first jaw [11, 17] and a second jaw [12], the first jaw [11, 17] being moveable relative to the second jaw [12] such that the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] can be moved between an open configuration in which the jaws [11, 12, 17] are spaced apart for receiving a flexible tube [13] therebetween and a closed configuration in which the jaws [11, 12, 17] are brought together so as to retain the tube [13] therebetween; an actuator mechanism [17] configured to control movement of the first jaw [11, 17] relative to the second jaw [12]; and means [11, 12] for effecting a peristaltic pumping action on a fluid contained within the tube [13] when the tube [13] is retained between the pair of jaws [11, 12, 17] in the closed configuration (paragraphs 0054-0067 and Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 29, Adler discloses a method of performing a peristaltic pumping action on a tube [13], comprising: actuating a plurality of pressing elements [11] independently to compress and release a portion of said tube [13] so as to pump a fluid therethrough, wherein said plurality of pressing elements [11] are arranged in a substantially linear configuration (paragraphs 0054-0067 and Figures 1-6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peissig a applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chassot et al. (US 2020/0297922 A1; hereinafter Chassot).
Regarding claim 6, Peissig does not disclose a detector to determine whether the tube is received between the Jaws. Chassot, however, teaches a similar peristaltic pump [200] with a flexible tube [146], further comprising a detector (paragraph 0095: “injection system that…senses if a delivery tube is properly installed”) to determine whether the tube [146] is received (paragraphs 0058, 0095, and Figure 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Peissig’s pump to include a detector to determine whether the tube is received between the jaws because Chassot teaches that this configuration recognizes whether or not a delivery tube is properly installed or if the tube needs to be discarded and substituted with a new one (paragraph 0095).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peissig a applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hertel (DE 19533432 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Peissig does not disclose a portion of the gripping mechanism arranged to contact the tube comprising a material with higher friction than the material on a portion of the pair of jaws arranged to contact the tube. Hertel, however, teaches a similar peristaltic pump (Figure 1) with a pair of jaws [10, 11, 13, 14] arranged to contact a flexible tube [12], wherein the material on a portion [13] of the pair of jaws [10, 11, 13, 14] arranged to contact the tube [12] has low friction (pages 3-4 and Figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a portion of Peissig’s gripping mechanism arranged to contact the tube to comprise a material with higher friction than the material on a portion of the pair of jaws arranged to contact the tube because Hertel teaches that the moving parts of the peristaltic pump contacting the hose are advantageously provided with a coating which reduces friction with the tube (page 4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peissig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pitchaimani et al. (WO 2022/140054 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Peissig does not disclose a flow sensor. Pitchaimani, however, teaches a similar peristaltic pump [10], further comprising a flow sensor [80] configured to measure the flow of fluid through a tube [124] (paragraphs 00138-00139 and Figure 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Peissig’s pump to include a flow sensor configured to measure the flow of fluid through the tube secured between the jaws because Pitchaimani teaches that this configuration accurately determines flowrate for pump control and monitoring (paragraphs 0021 and 00139).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler a applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tseng (US 4,586,882).
Regarding claim 10, Adler discloses the linear peristaltic pump of claim 9, wherein the profiled portion (paragraph 0055: “guidance”) of the jaw comprises a flat portion of the jaw (paragraphs 0015 and 0055). Adler does not disclose the profiled portion comprising a curved portion. Tseng, however, teaches a similar peristaltic pump [100] comprising a jaw [102] with a profiled portion [112], wherein the profiled portion [112] of the jaw [102] comprises a curved portion [114] of the jaw [102], preferably having a radius that generally corresponds (see Figures 9-10) to the radius of the tube to be received thereby (col. 7 line 64 – col. 9 line 7 and Figures 6 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Adler’s profiled portion to comprise a curved portion because Tseng teaches that this configuration facilitates occlusion of the tubing, results in less torque being required to displace a given volume of liquid, induces tubing shape restoration, and increases the life of the tubing (col. 1 lines 49-65).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler a applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hertel.
Regarding claim 14, Adler does not disclose a portion of the gripping mechanism arranged to contact the tube comprising a material with higher friction than the material on a portion of the pair of jaws arranged to contact the tube. Hertel, however, teaches a similar peristaltic pump (Figure 1) with a pair of jaws [10, 11, 13, 14] arranged to contact a flexible tube [12], wherein the material on a portion [13] of the pair of jaws [10, 11, 13, 14] arranged to contact the tube [12] has low friction (pages 3-4 and Figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a portion of Adler’s gripping mechanism arranged to contact the tube to comprise a material with higher friction than the material on a portion of the pair of jaws arranged to contact the tube because Hertel teaches that the moving parts of the peristaltic pump contacting the hose are advantageously provided with a coating which reduces friction with the tube (page 4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pitchaimani.
Regarding claim 19, Adler does not disclose a flow sensor. Pitchaimani, however, teaches a similar peristaltic pump [10], further comprising a flow sensor [80] configured to measure the flow of fluid through a tube [124] (paragraphs 00138-00139 and Figure 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Adler’s pump to include a flow sensor configured to measure the flow of fluid through the tube secured between the jaws because Pitchaimani teaches that this configuration accurately determines flowrate for pump control and monitoring (paragraphs 0021 and 00139).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Powers et al. (US 11,162,486 B2), Nzike et al. (US 2014/0356193 A1), Rotem et al. (US 2013/0142670 A1), Gottschalk (US 2006/0110274 A1), and Hill et al. (US 6,234,773 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights