DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 13 December 2024. The preliminary amendment to the claims filed on the same date has also been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5 – 9 and 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
Claims 1, 2 and 5 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claims 1, 2 and 5 – 20, the second set of presented claims are a preliminary amendment to the first set of claims, therefore they need to have the proper identifier such as “New”, “Currently amended” or “Original”, see 37 CFR 1.121 (c).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 16, 17 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 8, it is not clear what applicant means by “block” shaped, because a rectangular block cannot perform the rolling function of the roller of Claim 1. The specification does not provide a standard that ascertains what the scope of the “block shaped” limitation is, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
In Re Claim 16, the limitation “wherein the drive plate includes a first face facing” in Line 1 is a second positive recitation of the same in Claim 1, Line 3, thus making the limitation indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the phrase --wherein the first face faces-- will be assumed instead.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, 7, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Block discloses a peristaltic pump (the drive and rollers being relied upon are shown in Figures 55A-55E and the channel / membrane peristaltically engaging the rollers are shown in Figure 62) comprising: a rotatable drive plate (5502; Figure 55A); a closed-loop channel (between inlet/outlet ports 6103), wherein the drive plate (5502) includes a first face (see where label 5502 points) facing the channel, first and second recesses (where barrels 5501 are mounted – there are four depicted recesses and barrels) being formed spaced apart in the first face; a fluid inlet (one of the ports 6103 in Figure 62) located at a first location along the channel; a fluid outlet (the 3other of the ports 6103 in Figure 62 – one port is labeled, the other is not) located at a second location along the channel, spaced from the first location, wherein a first portion (6102 – this is the path that is followed by the barrels/rollers) of the channel extends between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (ports 6103), and a second portion (this is the straight line between the ports 6103 in Figure 62 that is sealed by the flexible membrane) of the channel, separate from the first portion of the channel, extends between the fluid outlet and the fluid inlet (ports 6103); a flexible membrane (6104) extending between, and fluidically connecting, the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (ports 6103), the flexible membrane (6104) defining a closed fluid path between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (ports 6103) along the first portion of the channel (6102 and 6104 form the border of the cross section of the closed fluid path); and, a first roller (barrel 5501; Figure 55A) captively disposed between the channel (between ports 6103; Figure 62) and the drive plate (5502; Figure 55A), the first roller (5501, there are four depicted) being seated in the first recess, and, a second roller (5501, there are four depicted) captively disposed between the channel (between ports 6103; Figure 62) and the drive plate (5502; Figure 55A), the second roller being seated in the second recess, wherein rotation of the drive plate (5502) causes interference between the drive plate (5502) and the first roller (5501) and causes interference between the drive plate (5502) and the second roller (5501), resulting in the first and second rollers traversing the channel (between ports 6103), the first and second rollers (5501) each causing downward deflection of the flexible membrane (6104) 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 (paragraphs [0294]-[0297],[0309],[0311]; Figures 55A-55E and 62).
In Re Claim 7, Block discloses that the roller (5501; Figure 55A) is barrel shaped.3
In Re Claim 11, Block discloses a motor (5901; Figure 59; paragraph [0298]) for rotating the drive plate (portion that has recesses 5602).
In Re Claim 13, Figure 62 of Block discloses that the channel (between ports 6103 parallel to faces of 6104) is generally disposed in a first plane, and, wherein the drive plate (the depicted plate having recesses 6204) includes a first face generally parallel to the first plane.
In Re Claim 14, Figure 62 of Block discloses that the flexible membrane (6104) defines the closed fluid path (which includes 6102) with adjacent portions of a base plate (6101; paragraph [0311]).
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, 2, 5, 6, 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaurte (US Patent 2,841,091 A) in view of Komatsu (PG Pub US 20050224763 A1) and as evidenced by Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Schaurte discloses a peristaltic pump (as would be recognized by one skilled in the art) comprising: a rotatable drive plate (6); a closed-loop channel (2, including 31 and 32), wherein the drive plate includes a first face (bottom of 6) facing the channel (2), a fluid inlet (24) located at a first location along the channel; a fluid outlet (25) located at a second location along the channel, spaced from the first location, wherein a first portion (portion of 2 excluding slots 31 and 32) of the channel extends between the fluid inlet (24) and the fluid outlet (25), and a second portion (of 2, comprising slots 31 and 32) of the channel, separate from the first portion of the channel, extends between the fluid outlet (25) and the fluid inlet (24); a flexible membrane (4) extending between, and fluidically connecting, the fluid inlet (24) and the fluid outlet (25), the flexible membrane (4) defining a closed fluid path between the fluid inlet (24) and the fluid outlet (25) along the first portion of the channel (2); and, a first roller (3, although only one of them is labeled - there are three rollers depicted) captively disposed between the channel (2) and the drive plate (6), and, a second roller (3, although only one of them is labeled - there are three rollers depicted) captively disposed between the channel (2) and the drive plate (6), wherein rotation of the drive plate causes interference (the rollers are in direct contact with the drive plate, therefore there is interference because the rollers cannot move axially upward) between the drive plate (6) and the first roller (3 – there are three) and causes interference (the rollers are in direct contact with the drive plate, therefore there is interference because the rollers cannot move axially upward) between the drive plate (6) and the second roller (3 – another of the three), resulting in the first and second rollers (3) traversing the channel, the first and second rollers each causing downward deflection (as shown in Figure 1) of the flexible membrane (4) in passing therealong to constrict the closed fluid path in displacing fluid within the closed fluid path (Column 4, Lines 33 – 37) from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet (Column 3, Line 45 – Column 4, Line 67; Figures 1 – 4).
Schaurte does not disclose first and second recesses being formed spaced apart in the first face.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Komatsu
However, Komatsu discloses a rotatable drive plate (4, it is rotatable by drive shaft 5) 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, the first roller (3) being seated in the first recess, the second roller (3) being seated in the second recess (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 modify the rotatable drive plate of Schaurte to incorporate corresponding recess for each roller as taught by Komatsu (thus essentially substituting the drive plate and cage of Schaurte with the drive plate and cage of Komatsu) for the purpose of guiding the rollers (the retaining cage 5 of Schaurte appears to be capable of moving laterally, and the recesses of Komatsu would restrict lateral movement of the cage; note that Komatsu describes the drive plate 4 as “guide” and is separate from cage 6 that performs the retaining function of the rollers).
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Schaurte discloses that the second portion (of 2, comprising slots 31 and 32) of the channel does not overlap any portion of the closed fluid path (as shown in Figure 4, the closed fluid path ends at 24 and 25).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and since the diameter of the cage (6) is equal to the diameter of the first plate (4) in Komatsu, in the modified apparatus, the diameter of the first plate (6) of Schaurte would be increased to equal to the diameter of the cage (5) thus the first plate (6) and its first face would overlap diametrically-opposed portions of the channel.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Schaurte depicts that the roller (3) is clearly a ball.
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Schaurte discloses an annular cage (5) having a lower face facing the channel (2) and an upper face facing away from the channel (2), a first seat (see where 3 contacts 5 in Figure 1) 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 Figure 1 of Schaurte discloses that a third roller (3, there are three depicted in Figure 1) is provided captively disposed between the channel (2) and the drive plate (6) such that rotation of the drive plate (6) causes the third roller to traverse the channel (2), the first, second and third rollers (3, there are three depicted in Figure 1) being evenly spaced about the channel as depicted.
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and the flexible membrane (4) of Schaurte defines a border of a tube formed by groove (2) and the membrane (4).
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Figure 1 of Schaurte discloses a spring (10) disposed to prestress the drive plate (6) towards the first and second rollers (3, there are three depicted in Figure 1)(Column 4, Lines 6 – 8).
Claim(s) 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1) in view of Sausse (US Patent 3,784,323 A).
In Re Claim 8, Block discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose that the rollers are block shaped.
However, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Sausse discloses rollers (16; Figures 6a, 6b, 6c) that are block shaped (Column 2, Lines 7 – 8; Figures 6a-6c).
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 Block with the block shaped rollers of Sausse as is known in the art – MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1) in view of Hopkins (US Patent 7,775,780 B2).
In Re Claim 9, Block discloses 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 Block with the conical shaped rollers of Hopkins as is known in the art – MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (PG Pub US 20180080570 A1) in view of Centofante (US Patent 10,138,881 B2).
In Re Claim 12, Block discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose that the membrane is secured to portions along the channel.
However, Centofante discloses a membrane (410) that is secured (via a bonding material in 508) to portions (508) along channel (506) (Column 6, Line 62 – Column 7, Line 4, and Column 7, Lines 26 – 63; Figures 4C, 4D, 5 – 7).
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 secure the membrane of Block to portions along the channel as taught by Centofante because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed membrane-securement technique of Block with the specifically disclosed membrane-securement technique of Centofante, so the results of the substitution are predictable – MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B.
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
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights