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 .
Election Restriction
The restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the force" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the language is amended to recite “a force”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the force" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the language is amended to recite “a force”.
Claim 16 recites “the force” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the language is amended to recite “a force”.
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 14-15 and 18-20 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.
Claim 14 recites “wherein parts of the control circuit are arranged in axial direction in front of and behind the magnetic bearing pairs and.” This language is not understood and the claim end with the word “and”. There are no pairs of magnetic bearings previously claimed. Claim 15 is also rejected in that it depends from claim 14. Prior art will not be used to reject claim 14 and 15 because they are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 and it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions. (In re Steele 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)).
Claims 18-20 are rejected for not being a proper methods claims. Claim 18 recites “providing” steps. The use of “providing” is not considered to recite an active method step. It is unclear if this is to be a method of manufacture or something else entirely. Claims 19-20 are also rejected in that they depend from claim 18.
Claim 19 recites “substantially” in lines 5 and 7. This language includes the relative term “substantially” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the word “substantially” cannot be determined from the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12-13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akdis US 2011/0238172.
Regarding claim 1: Akdis discloses a blood pump (abstract) comprising:
a pump chamber with a wall (“pump housing”, paragraph 0138) and a fluid inflow 2 (“inlet”, figure 1) and an outlet 3 (figure 1) with fluid flow between the inlet 2 and the outlet 3 (arrows in figures 1-2);
an impeller 12 (figure 1) in the pump chamber and coupled to a rotor (the impeller is described as part of the rotor, paragraph 0125), the impeller 12 (figure 1) rotates about rotational axis 23 (figure 1) which is in the center of the inlet 2 (figure 1) and defines an axial direction, the impeller/rotor drive the fluid flow between the inlet 2 and the outlet 3 (figures 1-2, paragraph 0162);
a motor stator 19 (the stator magnet is considered to be in or at the stator, (paragraph 0020) at the pump chamber, the motor stator including a coil (this is an electromagnetic bearing and therefore a coil is inherent to the design) to provide a motor magnetic field to interact with a magnetic field of a motor magnet 9 (figures 1-2) on the impeller 12 (figures 1-2, paragraph 0020) to rotationally drive the impeller (paragraph 0090);
a control coil 9 (figure 1) disposed at the pump chamber which is disposed adjacent to the drive magnet 11 (figure 1) and also creates an axial offset/gap (paragraph 0140);
a control unit providing the control current to the control coil and to hold the rotor in a position spaced apart axially from the wall of the pump chamber (paragraphs 0140, 0153, “control unit”, paragraph 0125);
a first chamber magnet 17 (figures 1-2) at the pump chamber close to the control coil and opposite a rotor magnet 16 (figures 1-2), the magnets providing a force to align the rotor relative to the wall (paragraphs 0186, 0190-0191).
Regarding claim 3: Akdis disclose that the rotor12 (part of the impeller, figure 1) has a recess (see fluid flow arrows in figure 2) around axis of rotation 23 (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10: Akdis disclose that the motor magnet 9 (figure 1) is arranged on a side of the impeller facing away from the inlet (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12: Akdis discloses that the fluid is blood (abstract) for a blood pump.
Regarding claim 13: Akdis discloses that a blood pump (abstract) which inherently supports the cardiac system.
Regarding claim 16: Akdis discloses that the first motor magnet 16 (figure 1) and the chamber magnet 17 (figure 1) is a repelling force (see the gap created in figure 1), this force would have some components in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 18: Akdis discloses providing a motor magnetic field (provided by 16, figure 1) for driving an impeller 12 (figure 1) connected to a rotor (paragraphs 0020, 0077, 0190) for fluid flow between and inlet 2 (figure 1) to an outlet 3 (figure 1); providing via a control coil 9 (figure 1) and a first rotor magnet 11 (figure 1) on a rotor, a controllable axial force to the rotor in a direction of an axis of rotation of the rotor (paragraph 0191); proving a control current for the control coil, to keep the rotor in a position spaced axially from a wall of the pump, in a time-varying position, in which the sum of the forces on the rotor except the controllable axial force in the axial direction adds to zero, and providing a force between the first rotor magnet and a first chamber magnet (paragraphs 0191, 0197, 0219).
Regarding claim 19: Akdis discloses guiding the flow through a recess in the rotor about the axis of rotation of the rotor away from the inlet towards the outlet, guiding the flow through the inlet in an axial direction and out of the outlet in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction (figures 1-2, paragraph 0152 and 0155-0165).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 14-15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims are directed towards the structure which includes a magnetic bearing 82 (figure 1) which has a magnet in the center of the chamber 5’ (figure 1a). In this configuration the second magnetic bearing 82 includes 3 magnets 5, 5 and 5’. This allows for both tilting control of the rotor as well as axial control (paragraph 0097).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796