Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Applicant's submission filed on 26 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 remain pending. Claims 8, 9, and 15 withdrawn due to a previous restriction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are convincing. The claimed center of the body along the rotational axis refers to the absence of a central passage that would be visible in figure 1 (Remarks pg 3).
A secondary reference Ohara (US 5,601,418) was included to address the newly claimed matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson (US 6,227,797) in view of Ohara (US 5,601,418).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watterson fig 1
Regarding claim 1, Watterson discloses an integrated electric motor and pump assembly (fig 1),
comprising: an impeller/rotor (100) assembly including a body (fig 2, blades 8)
having a number of poles located around the body's periphery (magnets 14 in blades),
the impeller/rotor assembly including a number of vanes (blades 8)
adapted to pump a fluid (blood, c 2 ln 50-58) when turned,
the body having a first inlet side (fig 1 and fig 3b, blade edge 101 facing housing front face 10 at inlet 6, c 4 ln 60-63, c 5 ln 18-20)
and a second side along the body’s rotational axis (fig 3b, blade edge 101 facing housing back face 11, c 5 ln 18-20),
…
a first stator assembly (15)
and a second stator assembly (16) located on opposite sides of the impeller/rotor assembly,
each stator including a body (windings, c 9 ln 12-15)
having a number of poles located around the body's periphery (four poles, c 9 ln 12-15),
the poles of the stator assemblies adapted to interact with the poles of the impeller/rotor assembly to rotationally drive the impeller/rotor assembly to pump the fluid (c 8 ln 14-19);
and a housing (2) around the impeller/rotor assembly, the first stator assembly, and the second stator assembly,
the housing comprising a first side (fig 1, the side with 6 and 15)
that corresponds to the first inlet side of the impeller/rotor assembly
and a second side (the side with 16 and 18)
that corresponds to the second side of the impeller/rotor assembly,
the housing further having an inlet (6) for the fluid on its first side and no inlet for the fluid on its second side (fig 1).
Waterson is silent on the body configured so that the fluid does not flow through the center of the body along the rotational axis from the first inlet side to behind the second side.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ohara fig 1, first embodiment
PNG
media_image3.png
392
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ohara fig 10, second embodiment
Ohara teaches an analogous shaftless centrifugal blood pump, with magnet drive means (abstract); with
a first embodiment having an impeller with a fluid passage through the center of the impeller (fig 5 central passage 15) which functions to reduce required lifting force as well as improve flow at the bottom section of the impeller and avoid blood stagnation (c 5 ln 20-30) and includes a specific raised rotation center (fig 7, 33) beneath the center flow passage (15); and
an alternate second embodiment having an impeller without a central passage through the center of the impeller (fig 10, shaft 19, c 9 ln 1-23) where an additional pair of centering bearings (22, 24); and the inlet (34) is moved off of the centerline thereby preventing blood from colliding at a central pivot and preventing hemolysis and thrombus, thereby enabling the pump to be operated continuously for an extended period of time (c 9 ln 13-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impeller center passage (fig 9, 219), and housing casing central passage (200) and housing conical extension (220) of Woodard with the impeller center shaft (fig 10, 19), and housing eccentric inlet port (34) and housing bearings (22, 24) of Ohara in order to smoothly and stabling support the rotation of the impeller (Ohara, c 9 ln 8-9) as well as prevent the generation of hemolysis and thrombus and thereby enabling the continuous operation of the embodiment for an extended period of time (Ohara, c 9 ln 18-23).
Furthermore, the modification of Waterson’s impeller and housing with the teachings of the impeller and housing of Ohara’s second embodiment is within the general skills in the art; because the proposed modification of Watterson is the same as the modification from first embodiment to second embodiment taught in Ohara. In this case, Waterson is analogous to Ohara’s first embodiment with the analogous central passage and back plate extension meant to reduce stagnation (Waterson, par 0075; Ohara, c 5 ln 15-30); and the proposed modification of Watterson is therefore the same modification done in the same way as Ohara’s first embodiment to second embodiment. It is within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to improve the impeller device in Watterson in the same way that Ohara improves its similar devices.
As a result of the combination, replacing the central passage of Waterson’s impeller with the shaft (19) of Ohara meets the limitation “the body (impeller) configured so that the fluid does not flow through the center of the body along the rotational axis from the first inlet side to behind the second side.”
Regarding claim 2, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the stator assemblies generate a magnetic force field (Waterson, c 8 ln 14-19), and the impeller/rotor assembly is suspended by the magnetic force field of the stator assemblies during operation (magnet forces can provide the axial bearing, c 3 ln 17-18, 37-38).
Regarding claim 3, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the impeller/rotor assembly is supported by a thin fluid film bearing (Waterson, impeller suspended hydrodynamically, c 3 ln 19-23 and c 5 ln 17-25) derived from a specific directed flow of the fluid being pumped (c 3 ln 23-27; c 5 ln 17-41).
Regarding claim 4, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1. Watterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the impeller/rotor assembly comprises a bushing surface adapted to allow the impeller/rotor assembly to come to rest after the pump is turned off. Nevertheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent that an impeller will come to a rest when the pump is shut down and the impeller stops moving, because in an off state, no energy is put into a system to force the impeller to continue to move. Inherently, where ever said impeller comes to a rest after stopping, the portion of the impeller that contacts another portion of the pump assembly on which it rests, would form a bushing surface and would thereby meet the claimed limitation. Furthermore, Watterson discloses impeller 100 and fig 1 shows a shape of the impeller 100 which appears to be drawn as sized to rest on the housing back face.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the lower surface of impeller 100 being able to rest on housing back face 11 meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the pump assembly is configured as a centrifugal pump (Watterson, centrifugal pump, c 2 ln 59-60).
Regarding claim 10, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1. Watterson does not explicitly disclose the stators assemblies comprise switched-reluctance stators.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that Watterson meets the limitation of switched reluctance stators because it teaches that the stators transfer torque to the rotor comprising permanent magnets through a rotating magnetic field (c 8 ln 15-20), said rotating magnetic field controlled by semiconducting switches (c 10 ln 10-13). Reluctance motors operate by using a rotating magnetic field from the stators drive the rotation of magnets in the rotor. The switches which control electricity to the stators make it a switched reluctance motor. Therefore, it is obvious that Watterson disclosure of electrical power delivered to the stator windings and controlled by switches, meets the plain meaning of switched-reluctance stator.
Regarding claim 12, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1. Watterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the stator assemblies are of an inductance motor type, and the impeller/rotor assembly poles comprise conductors.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that Watterson meets the limitation of inductance motor type because it teaches that the stators transfer torque to the rotor through a rotating magnetic field (c 8 ln 15-20). An induction motor is defined by transferring torque to a rotor via a rotating magnetic field; therefore, Watterson’s rotating magnetic field meets the claim limitation. Furthermore, it is obvious that Watterson meets the limitation that the impeller/rotor assembly poles comprise conductors, because Watterson discloses sintered rare-earth magnets (c 8 ln 21) or die-pressed magnets (c 8 ln 49) in the impeller/rotor blades. It is known that all rare-earth magnets comprise the rare-earth metals, and that all metals are conductors.
Regarding claim 13, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1. Watterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the stators are of a synchronous reluctance type, and the impeller/rotor assembly is of a synchronous reluctance type.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that Watterson meets the limitation of synchronous reluctance stators and rotor because it teaches a reluctance motor (as shown at claim 10), wherein the delivery of power to the winding is synchronized with the impeller position (c 10 ln 9-13), thereby synching the rotating magnetic field with the impeller position. Therefore, it is obvious that Watterson meets the limitation of synchronous reluctance type stator because of the synchronization of the magnetic field with the rotor position.
Regarding claim 16, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the poles of the stator assemblies comprise C-shaped elements (fig 5, windings 15 on top 16 on back, c 9 ln 53-55; the windings appear crescent shaped as the wrap around the axis of the pump) that each have a conductor wrapper therearound (copper wound c 9 ln 57-60).
Regarding claim 17, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein: the stator assemblies comprise auxiliary poles (the two out of six unenergized phase coils, c 10 ln 9-13);…, the auxiliary poles adapted to create a magnetic flux (back-emf, c 10 ln 13) that interacts with the [impeller] to position the impeller/rotor assembly (c 10 ln 9-10).
Watterson does not explicitly disclose the impeller/rotor assembly comprises at least one control ring. Nevertheless, Watterson discloses a back-emf in the stator windings is used to determine position of the rotor (c 10 ln 9-13). It is obvious that the rotation of the permanent magnets within the rotor (c 8 ln 15-19) creates a moving magnetic field which induces the back-emf in the stator coil. Since, back-emf induced by the rotor is used to determine position of the impeller/rotor, and the rotor is a round shaped body; the person of ordinary skill would conclude that the impeller also meets the plain meaning of the limitation “control ring.”
Regarding claim 18, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the impeller/rotor assembly comprises ferromagnetic elements on the first side (Watterson, fig 7, yoke 211 c 11 ln 65) and ferromagnetic elements on the second side (fig 7, yoke 214 c 11 ln 65).
Watterson does not disclose wherein the ferromagnetic elements on the first side are circumferentially offset from the ferromagnetic elements on the second side. Nevertheless, Watterson does disclose yokes 211, 214 as circles. The circumferential offset is obvious as a design choice; Watterson meets the claim limitation, because any circumferential offset of circular yokes would have no difference in the function of the yokes 211 and 214 because of their circular shape.
Regarding claim 19, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the body of the impeller/rotor assembly includes a circular hub (the base of blades 207, beneath the support cone 208, approximate a circular shape because they encircle circular cavity 219, c 12 ln 1-6) centered on the second side of the body and that extends outward from the second side of the body (the bases of blades 207 extend downward from the support cone 208, c 12 ln 1-6).
Regarding claim 20, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 19, wherein the housing is configured such that a thin fluid film bearing (Watterson, c 2 ln 50-51) is developed between the hub and the housing to help support the impeller/rotor assembly during operation (Watterson, c 2 ln 53-58 and c 5 ln 17-25).
Regarding claim 21, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, wherein the first stator assembly and the second stator assembly have corresponding poles on each side of the impeller/rotor assembly (Watterson, 4 poles stators, c 9 ln 12-15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Watterson in view of Ohara in view of Nose (US 6,884,210).
Regarding claim 6, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1, further comprising a motor controller (c 10 ln 3-24). Watterson does not disclose the controller integrated into the housing. Nevertheless, it does disclose that it is an implanted rotary blood pump implanted in a human patient (c 1 ln 9-31).
Nose teaches an implanted rotary blood pump implanted in a human patient (fig 1, c 6 ln 48-65) with a controller integrated into the housing (c 6 ln 22-31). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the controller of the motor of Watterson into the pump housing as taught by Nose, thus reducing the size of the pump as is known in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Watterson in view of Ohara in view of Suzuki (US 2016/0185431).
Regarding claim 11, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1. Watterson does not disclose wherein the poles of the impeller/rotor assembly are composed of non-permanent magnets. Nevertheless, Watterson teaches permanent magnets in the impeller/rotor assembly (14, c 8 ln 16).
Suzuki teaches a rotating electrical machine (100) which can be used to drive a pump (para 140), the stator constituting a switched reluctance motor (paragraph 21) wherein the impeller/rotor assembly can be composed of either non-permanent or permanent magnets (par 0102) as a design choice without a change in the function of the impeller.
Suzuki further teaches that their non-permanent magnet rotor embodiment has a rotor portion with large magnetic permeability alternately arranged with portion of small magnetic permeability, which generate torque when the stator applies its magnetic field (para 0057). These portions of magnetic permeability meet the limitation of non-permanent magnets, because magnetic permeability is a measure of a material to have an induced magnetic field when a magnetic field is applied to the material, such as the magnetic field from the stator.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the permanent magnets in the rotor of Watterson with non-permanent magnets comprising alternating material of large magnetic permeability with material of low magnetic permeability, as a design choice, for the expected result of an impeller rotating from torque resulting from the stator’s applied magnetic field (Suzuki, para 0057).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Watterson in view of Ohara in view of Gieras (US 2011/0133485).
Regarding claim 14, Watterson in view of Ohara teaches the integrated electric motor and pump assembly of claim 1. Watterson does not disclose wherein the stator assemblies are of a transverse flux type.
Gieras teaches a transverse flux regulated machine which can be used as an electric motor (para 5), which can be used for pump motors (para 53).
It would have been obvious to replace the stator of Watterson with the transverse flux stator of Gieras in order to increase power density, compact construction, and efficiency over standard flux machines (Gieras, para 0052), thereby creating a more efficient pump.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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 on (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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746