DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final action, dated February 24, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 11, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5 – 7, 9 – 11, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,320,348. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the patents encompass and would read on the limitations of the pending application.
In reference to claim 1, ‘348 teaches a peristaltic pump comprising: a rotor (see claim 1, line 3); a housing in which the rotor is arranged (see claim 1, line 4) and comprising a tube inlet and a tube outlet (see claim 15: referred as “pump inlet side” and “pump outlet side”); and an opening and closing mechanism comprising: a slider (see claim 1, lines 6-12); a tube pressuring portion coupled to the slider (see claim 1, lines 6-12); an adjustment element configured to move a tube engaging surface of the tube pressuring portion toward and away from the rotor to adjust the peristaltic pump to various system pressures (see claim 1, lines 26-30); an elastic element coupling the tube pressuring portion to the slider and connected to the adjustment element such that tension in the elastic element is adjustable (see claim 2, lines 2-6); and a pivotable cover coupled to the housing and the slider (see claim 1, lines 7-8); wherein the slider engages the pivotable cover such that, in response to closing and opening the pivotable cover, the tube engaging surface of the tube pressuring portion slides towards and away from the rotor (see claim 1, lines 26-30).
With respect to the limitations “a tube holder coupled to the slider comprising an inlet engaging portion and an outlet engaging portion;... the inlet engaging portion slides towards and away from an inner surface of the tube inlet, and the outlet engaging portion slides towards and away from an inner surface of the tube outlet, respectively” in claim 1 of the instant application: The recitation of an integrated “tube holder” having “an inlet engaging portion and an outlet engaging portion” is considered functionally and structurally equivalent to, or an obvious design choice over, the recited features of “inlet tube holder portion” and “outlet tube holder portion” in claims 15 and 16 of ‘348. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the inlet and outlet tube holder portions as distinct engaging portions of a common tube holder coupled to the slider, since both arrangements provide the same function result of clamping/releasing the tubing at the inlet and outlet sides in response to movement of the pivotable cover and slider.
In reference to claim 2, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, further comprising a motor configured to rotate the rotor (see claim 1, lines 2-3).
In reference to claim 3, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein: the slider comprise a post (see claim 10); and the pivotable cover engages the post in response to closing and opening the pivotable cover (see claim 11).
In reference to claim 4, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the pivotable cover comprises a rotating shaft and an extension extending radially from the rotating shaft; closing and opening of the pivotable cover rotates the pivotable cover about the rotating shaft, and wherein the extension engages the post in response to closing and opening the pivotable cover (see claim 1, last 6 lines).
In reference to claim 5, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the extension comprises a roller that contacts the post where the extension engages the post in response to closing and opening the pivotable cover (see claim 11).
In reference to claim 6, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the rotating shaft includes a sensor element, the housing includes a sensor, and the sensor element and the sensor are arranged to detect whether the pivotable cover is open or closed (see claim 18).
In reference to claim 9, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, further comprising a ball bearing arranged around the rotating shaft (see claim 20).
In reference to claim 10, ‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the extension comprises at least a portion of the ball bearing.
In ‘348, the “extension” of claim 1 is specifically embodied in dependent claims 19 and 20 as the eccentric assembly comprising the eccentric shaft, disc-shaped pieces, and the ball bearing arranged around the eccentric shaft to engage the slider moving element. Claims 19 and 20 of ‘348 already claim providing a ball bearing on the shaft extension to contact and move the slider mechanism (the post/slider moving element). Defining the extension as comprising “at least a portion of the ball bearing” is an obvious structural variation of, and substantially identical in function to, the arrangement defined in claims 1, 19 and 20 of ‘348.
In reference to claim 11, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein: the housing includes a front portion and a back portion; the rotor is arranged in the front portion; and the slider, the elastic element, and the adjustment element are arranged in the back portion (see claim 6).
In reference to claim 14, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the tube pressuring portion includes a stop element configured to engage the adjustment element such that the adjustment element cannot move any longer once tension in the elastic element is set (see claim 7).
In reference to claim 15, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the elastic element is a spring and wherein the adjustment element is a screw (see claim 9).
In reference to claim 19, ‘348 teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the elastic element includes two elastic elements connected to the adjustment element (see claim 5).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over ‘348 in view of Stemple et al. (US 2009/0129944 – herein after Stemple; cited by applicant on IDS dated 05/12/2025).
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor or an electromechanical sensor.
However, Stemple teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor or an electromechanical sensor (the sensor 26 is an inductive sensor which is considered to be a magnetic sensor or an electromechanical sensor; furthermore see ¶23 of Stemple: “While an inductive sensor has been disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that other types of sensors may also be used to sense the open condition of the door”).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sensor of ‘348 comprising of a magnetic sensor as taught by Stemple since use of such sensor is well-known in the art for sensing the open condition of the door in the peristaltic pump, as recognized by Stemple above.
Claims 8, 12, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over ‘348 in view of Fujii et al. (US 2010/0224547 – herein after Fujii; cited by applicant on IDS dated 05/12/2025).
Regarding claim 8,
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein a distal end of the post comprises a chamfer.
However, Fujii teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein a distal end (corner end) of the post comprises a chamfer (see fig. A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
996
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 2 of Fujii to show claim interpretation.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the distal end of the post in the pump of ‘348 comprising a chamfer as taught by Fujii for one of the well-known purposes such as to reduce stress concentrations or making parts easier to assemble.
Regarding claim 12,
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, further comprising a separating wall separating the front portion from the back portion.
However, Fujii, as modified, teaches the peristaltic pump, further comprising a separating wall (labeled “wall” in fig. A above; shaded for convenience) separating the front portion from the back portion.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a physical separating wall as taught by Fujii between the partitioned front and back portions in the pump of ‘348 in order to protect mechanical driver/slider components in the back portion from dust, fluid, and tubing debris present in the front rotor compartment.
Regarding claim 13,
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the separating wall comprises a longitudinal opening, the slider comprises a post extending through the longitudinal opening into the front portion, and the pivotable cover engages the post.
However, Fujii, as modified, teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the separating wall comprises a longitudinal opening (see fig. A above), the slider comprises a post [post = a structure that is used to support something; asserted slider is a wall structure that supports component 4, therefore asserted slider is considered to be a post] extending through the longitudinal opening into (↓) the front portion (bottom portion), and the pivotable cover (5) engages the post (via 6, 7, 8).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a longitudinal opening in the separating wall as taught by Fujii in the modified pump of ‘348 to allow the post on the back-compartment slider to extend into the front compartment to operatively engage the cover assembly, thereby enabling smooth mechanical transmission across the partitioned housing.
Regarding claim 18,
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the rotor comprises a plurality of tube rollers configured to press tubing against the tube pressuring portion.
However, Fujii teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the rotor (2/3) comprises a plurality of tube rollers (3) configured to press tubing against the tube pressuring portion (4).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the rotor in the pump of ‘348 with a plurality of tube rollers as taught by Fujii because utilizing multiple pinch rollers arranged along the rotor circumference is a standard and predictable arrangement to squeeze and progressively advance liquid through elastic tubing.
Regarding claim 20,
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the pivotable cover comprises a transparent portion aligned with a space between the rotor and the tube pressuring portion when the pivotable cover is in a closed position.
However, Fujii teaches the peristaltic pump, wherein the pivotable cover (5) comprises a transparent portion (hollow portion) aligned (in circumferential direction, see fig. 3) with a space between the rotor (2/3) and the tube pressuring portion (4) when the pivotable cover is in a closed position.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the pivotable cover in the pump of ‘348 with a transparent portion aligned with the tube-occlusion space as taught by Fujii to allow an operator to visually inspect the tube placement, occlusion condition, and rotor movement during pump operation without opening the cover.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over ‘348 in view of Bastian, J.W. (US 3,353,491 – herein after Bastian; cited by applicant on IDS dated 05/12/2025).
‘348 remains silent on the peristaltic pump, wherein the elastic element is a rubber element.
However, Bastian teaches (see col. 4, lines 32-40 and figs. 1-2) that the type of elastic element (46a/46b) utilized in a peristaltic pump is dependent a viscosity of the pumped fluid.
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with the elastic element being “a rubber element” shape (for instance, see ¶93 of filed specification), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic element to be a rubber element in the ‘348’s peristaltic pump as a matter of design choice since the type of elastic element utilized in a peristaltic pump is dependent a viscosity of the pumped fluid (as recognized by Bastian above). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified ‘348’s pump to perform equally well with the claimed rubber element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 16 and 18 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
Claim 17 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For independent claim 1, the prior art(s) on record alone or in combination fails to specifically teach the peristaltic pump, wherein the opening and closing mechanism further includes an elastic element coupling the tube pressuring portion to the slider and connected to the adjustment element such that tension in the elastic element is adjustable.
Claims 2 – 16 and 18 – 20 depend on claim 1.
For independent claim 17, the statement of reasons remains the same as discussed in the last Non-Final Action dated 02/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 05/26/2026, have been considered and are persuasive in view of the filed claim amendments and arguments.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights