DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 06 August 2026. Claims 1, 5 – 7, 9, 11 – 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 Objections
The previously made claim objections are hereby withdrawn because Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously made 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of suitable amendments to the claims submitted with applicant’s response.
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) 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulatov (Swedish Patent SU 568741 A1, Machine Translation provided) in view of Foxcroft (US Patent 4,392,794 A) and further in view of Komatsu (PG Pub US 20050224763 A1) and as evidenced by Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim 1, with reference to the only Figure (annotated above), Bulatov discloses a peristaltic pump (Line 1 of Translation) comprising: a rotatable drive plate (1, 2) having a first face facing the channel (12); a closed-loop channel (12; Translation Line 6), a fluid inlet (annotated above) located at a first location along the channel (12); a fluid outlet (annotated above) located at a second location along the channel, spaced from the first location, wherein a first portion of the channel extends between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (this the region of groove 12 occupied by one of the tubes which is being designated the flexible membrane), and a second portion of the channel, separate from the first portion of the channel, extends between the fluid outlet and the fluid inlet (this the region of groove 12 that is not occupied by the tubes which is being designated the flexible membrane); a flexible membrane (one of the tubes 9-11 designated in the annotated figure above) extending between, and fluidically connecting, the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, the flexible membrane defining a closed fluid path between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet along the first portion of the channel (the arrows designate the flow through the tube), wherein the second portion of the channel does not overlap any portion of the closed fluid path with the flexible membrane (see annotated figure above) being only coextensive with the closed fluid path; and a first roller (5) and a second roller (there are three such rollers: 5) captively disposed between the channel (12) and the drive plate (1, 2), resulting in the first and second rollers traversing the channel, the first and second rollers each causing downward deflection of the flexible membrane (i.e. peristaltic action by the rollers) in passing therealong to constrict the closed fluid path in displacing fluid within the closed fluid path from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet; (Abstract; Figure 1).
As discussed above, the examiner contends that the tube (9-11) of Bulatov reads on the claimed flexible membrane. Alternatively, if it is not clear to applicant that the tube is a flexible membrane:
However, Figure 4 of Foxcroft discloses a tube (36 or 38; Figure 2) that is formed by a rigid wall (40; Figure 2) and flexible membrane (42; Figure 2) and that has inlet / outlet (50); (Column 2, Lines 34 – 44).
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 tube (9-11) of Bulatov with the tube (36 or 38) of Foxcroft which includes a rigid wall (40) and flexible membrane (42) of Foxcroft because it is only a matter of substituting one peristaltic pump segment (of Bulatov) with another peristaltic pump segment (of Foxcroft), therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Bulatov and Foxcroft do not disclose that the rotatable drive plate has first and second recesses, with the first and second roller disposed in the recesses.
PNG
media_image2.png
690
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Komatsu
However, Komatsu discloses a rotatable drive plate (4, it is rotatable by drive shaft 5) includes a first face having first and second recesses (see annotated figure above, for evidence of existence of these recesses see recesses {5602} of Block in Figure 56, paragraph [0295]) being formed spaced apart in the first face, a first roller (3) captively disposed between the channel (surface of 2) and the drive plate (4), the first roller (3) being seated in the first recess, and, a second roller (3) captively disposed between the channel (surface of 2) and the drive plate (4), the second roller (3) being seated in the second recess, wherein rotation of the drive plate (4) causes interference between the drive plate (4) and the first roller (3) and causes interference between the drive plate (4) and the second roller (3); (paragraph [0073], Figure 1).
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 drive (1, 2, 5, 6, 7) of Bulatov / Foxcroft with the drive (3, 4, 5, 6, 8) of Komatsu because it is only a matter of substituting one type of drive (disc type rollers of Bulatov) with another type of drive (ball type rollers of Komatsu) with the expectation of predictable results (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). Evidence of predictability is demonstrated by Block which shows that a drive having balls as the rollers (Figure 56) is an option to a drive that has discs as rollers (Figure 55a).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and since the diameter of the ball-cage (6) is equal to the diameter of the first plate (4) and drive (5) in Komatsu, in the modified apparatus, the drive plate of Komatsu would overlap diametrically-opposed portions of the channel of Bulatov.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Komatsu depicts that the roller (3) is clearly a ball.
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Bulatov depicts that the roller (5, 6, 7) is clearly a barrel.
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Foxcroft discloses a drive motor (70). The drives of Bulatov and Komatsu must have such a motor.
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Foxcroft discloses that the flexible membrane (42) is secured (by bolts 48) to portions along the channel (formed by 40).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and the channel (12) of Bulatov is generally disposed in a first plane, and, wherein the drive plate of Komatsu includes a first face of the drive plate (4) is generally parallel to the first plane in the modified apparatus.
In Re Claim 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Bulatov discloses that the flexible membrane (9-11) defines the closed fluid path with adjacent portions of a base plate (8).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Komatsu discloses an annular cage (6) having a lower face facing the channel (surface of 2) and an upper face facing away from the channel (surface of 2), a first seat (where 3 contacts 6) being formed in the lower face for receiving the first roller (3), a first opening being formed in the upper face in alignment with the first seat to allow a portion of the first roller (3) to protrude (as depicted) from the upper face with the first roller (3) seated in the first seat (as shown in Figure 1).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Komatsu discloses that the first face of the drive plate (4) faces the upper face (of 6), a first recess (as shown in the annotated figure related to claim 1) being formed in the first face to receive the portion of the first roller (3) protruding from the upper face (of 6).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and Figure 1 of Komatsu discloses that the cage (6) is independently rotatable from the drive plate (4) because the cage performs the function of retaining the balls and regulating their location interval (paragraph [0073]).
In Re Claim 18, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Komatsu discloses that a third roller (3, paragraph [0084] discloses three rollers) is provided captively disposed between the channel (surface of 2) and the drive plate (4) such that rotation of the drive plate (6) causes the third roller to traverse the channel (surface of 2), Bulatov discloses that the first, second and third rollers (5, there are three depicted) being evenly spaced about the channel (12) as depicted.
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and the flexible membrane (42) of Foxcroft defines a border of a tube formed by wall (2) and the membrane (42).
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Figure 1 of Bulatov discloses a spring (14) disposed to prestress the drive plate (2) towards the first and second rollers (5)(Translation Lines 6 – 7).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulatov (Swedish Patent SU 568741 A1, Machine Translation provided) in view of Foxcroft (US Patent 4,392,794 A) and in view of Komatsu (PG Pub US 20050224763 A1) and as evidenced by Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1) and further in view of Hopkins (US Patent 7,775,780 B2).
In Re Claim 9, Bulatov, Foxcroft, Komatsu and Block disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. but it does not disclose that the rollers are conical shaped.
However, Hopkins discloses that the rollers (16) are conical shaped (Column 2, Lines 28 – 36; Figures 1, 3).
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 rollers of Bulatov / Foxcroft / Komatsu / Block with the conical shaped rollers of Hopkins as is known in the art – MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “The Komatsu
et al. drive plate requires lubrication. It is unpredictable if Schuarte would operate with Komatsu et al. lubrication, particularly since slipping may cause Schuarte to not pump correctly. The drive plate 4 cannot be operationally separated from the use of the lubricating oil 7 in Komatsu et al”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons: The purpose of the lubricating oil 7 is to lubricate the balls 3, not the plate 4 (paragraph [0073]: "A lubricating oil 7 for lubricating a rolling portion of the balls is poured in the machine body 1"). The functionality of the lubricating oil is related to Komatsu’s application of the roller drive (5, 3). It is common knowledge in the art that peristaltic pump roller-drives do not require any lubrication as evidenced by Schuarte.
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
Prosecution Insights