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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 22 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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) 8-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,443,451 A to Chapman et al. (Chapman).
In reference to claim 8, Chapman discloses a pump comprising: a shaft (122; Fig. 6); a plurality of peristaltic wheels (112, 114, 116, 118) arranged along a length of the shaft, wherein each peristaltic wheel of the plurality of peristaltic wheels is configured to rotate independently about the shaft (implicit; col. 4, line 51- col. 5, line 12; all pumping modules share a single shaft 122, but pumping module is driven by an independent motor 132, 134, 136, 138), a peristaltic wheel of the plurality of peristaltic wheels including: a first disk (at symbols 112, 114, 116, 118, one part of the “two part sheaves”, col. 4, line 52, alternatively, 128) and a second disk (other half of 112, 114, 116, 118, of the “two-part sheaves”; alternatively, 128); a drive portion (bolts depicted in Fig. 6) disposed between the first disk and the second disk and configured to receive a driving force from a respective motor (via gears and 128 depicted in Figs. 7, 8), and a plurality of rollers (120) disposed about a circumference of the peristaltic wheel between the first disk and the second disk, wherein each roller of the plurality of rollers has a diameter that extends beyond a perimeter of the peristaltic wheel (see Figs. 10, 11) and is configured to freely rotate about a rotation axis parallel with the shaft; a plurality of motors (132, 134, 136, 138), each motor configured to independently drive the drive portion of a respective peristaltic wheel via a coupling with the drive portion (via 128 and gears depicted in Figs. 7, 8); a plurality of tubes (44) extending across the shaft and plurality of peristaltic wheels and connecting between a source (22; Fig. 2) and a vessel (70); and one or more pump clips (130, 131) configured to position the plurality of tubes between a respective pump clip and a respective peristaltic wheel, wherein the one or more pump clips include a radial portion having an internal surface co-radial with the peristaltic wheel (see Figs. 10-11).
In reference to claim 9, Chapman discloses the pump of claim 8, wherein the one or more pump clips are configured to secure relative to the peristaltic wheel such that a distance between the internal surface of the one or more pump clips and the plurality of rollers corresponds to a thickness of the plurality of tubes when compressed to provide peristaltic action (see Fig. 11).
In reference to claim 10, Chapman discloses the pump of claim 8, further comprising a controller (col. 1, line 55) configured to independently control each motor of the plurality of motors to deliver fluid through the plurality of tubes at independently controllable rates (col. 1, lines 54-61, col. 5, lines 3-9, col 5, lines 60-63).
In reference to claim 12, Chapman discloses the pump of claim 8, wherein the drive portion (128) is disposed adjacent to the plurality of rollers (120) along a width of the peristaltic wheel (see Fig. 6).
In reference to claim 13, Chapman discloses the pump of claim 8, wherein the peristaltic wheel further includes: a third disk (in this interpretation, the two halves of the wheels 112/114/116/118 are interpreted as the second and third disks), wherein the drive portion (bolt) is disposed between the first disk (in this interpretation, 128) and the third disk, and wherein the plurality of rollers are disposed between the second disk and the third disk.
In reference to claim 14, Chapman discloses the pump of claim 13, wherein the plurality of rollers are rotationally connected to pins (shown in Figs. 6, 8) connecting the third disk to the second disk, wherein the plurality of rollers are free to rotate about the pins.
In reference to claim 15, Chapman discloses the pump of claim 8, wherein the one or more pump clips are releasably secured to a support structure via one or more latches (106, 160; Figs. 6, 8, 10, 11), and wherein the one or more pump clips include an inlet (134, 135, 136; Fig. 12; col. 5, lines 41-50) that aligns and secures a respective tube in position within a channel to prevent the tube from drifting along a length of the shaft.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman in view of US 5,340,290 A to Clemens (Clemens).
In reference to claim 1, Chapman discloses a system substantively identical to what is recited in claim 8 (see rejection above; the same rationale applies), but fails to explicitly disclose that the vessel (70) is a bioreactor. However, Chapman teaches that peristaltic pumps are also used for the delivery of other liquids such as medications, additives to fluid mixing processes, etc. (col. 5, lines 3-6). Clemens also discloses a peristaltic pump and is brought in merely to demonstrate that peristaltic pumps are known in the art for use with bioreactors (col. 2, lines 46-51). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known pump structure disclosed by Chapman for use in a bioreactor as taught by Clemens. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
In reference to claims 2, 4, 6 and 7, the structure claimed is substantively identical to what is disclosed by Chapman in the rejection of claims 8-10 and 12-15 above. See above; the same rationale applies.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman and the modified Chapman as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2024/0382660 A1 to Jansson et al. (Jansson).
In reference to claims 3 and 11, the modified Chapman teaches and Chapman discloses the system of claim 2 and the pump of claim 11, respectively, but fails to explicitly disclose a capacitive sensor. However, Jansson discloses a similar peristaltic pump and system comprising a wheel (76; Fig. 3), motor (par. 0080) and controller (50), further comprising a capacitive sensor (par. 0084) disposed adjacent to a tube at a first side (“patient line” 120) of the wheel, the capacitive sensor in communication with the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the motor in response to sensor data from the capacitive sensor to prime the system by detecting a presence of fluid within the tube at the outlet side (pars. 0084, 0101-0102). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor and control disclosed by Jansson into the system of the modified Chapman or the pump of the modified Chapman. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the modification would advantageously automatically ready the system for treatment, as taught by Jansson (par. 0084, 0101).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Chapman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0072871 A1 to Ozturk (Ozturk).
In reference to claim 5, the modified Chapman teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose a belt interface. However, Ozturk discloses a similar peristaltic pump system comprising a plurality of wheels (2, 4, 6, 8; Fig. 1) wherein the drive portion includes a first belt interface (pulleys 17a-d), and a respective motor (13, 15, 17, 19) includes a second belt interface (corresponding pulleys on motors), and wherein the motor is configured to engage with the drive portion via a belt (18a-d) extending between the first belt interface and the second belt interface (see Fig. 1, pars. 0024-0026, 0029-0030). Further, Ozturk teaches that both pulley and gears can be used to drive pumps (par. 0030). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known pulley system disclosed by Ozturk for the known gears of Chapman. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman in view of Jansson.
In reference to claims 16 and 20, Chapman discloses a device substantively identical to what is recited in claim 8 (see rejection above; the same rationale applies), but fails to explicitly disclose a capacitive sensor. However, Jansson discloses a similar peristaltic pump and system comprising a wheel (76; Fig. 3), motor (par. 0080) and controller (50), further comprising a capacitive sensor (par. 0084) disposed adjacent to a tube at a first side (“patient line” 120) of the wheel, the capacitive sensor in communication with the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the motor in response to sensor data from the capacitive sensor to prime the system by detecting a presence of fluid within the tube at the outlet side (pars. 0084, 0101-0102). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor and control disclosed by Jansson into the system of the modified Chapman or the pump of the modified Chapman. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the modification would advantageously automatically ready the system for treatment, as taught by Jansson (par. 0084, 0101).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Chapman as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Clemens.
In reference to claims 17-19, the modified Chapman teaches the device of claim 16, but fails to explicitly disclose that the vessel (70) is a bioreactor. However, Chapman teaches that peristaltic pumps are also used for the delivery of other liquids such as medications, additives to fluid mixing processes, etc. (col. 5, lines 3-6). Clemens also discloses a peristaltic pump and is brought in merely to demonstrate that peristaltic pumps are known in the art for use with bioreactors (col. 2, lines 46-51). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known pump structure disclosed by Chapman for use in a bioreactor as taught by Clemens. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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 III 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
03 June 2026
Prosecution Insights