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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
figure numbers 30 and 50 point to the same structure, the specification states that element 30 is the internal chamber and element 50 is the rotor.
Figure number 51, recited in paragraph 0070 is not in figure 1a.
Element 20 points to the inlet yet describes this element In figure 1a as the housing.
Regarding figure 4: elements 17, 22, 39 and 51 are not in the drawing yet are discussed in the specification
Element 32 and 34 point to the same structure.
Elements 30 and 50 point to the same structure and there are two elements labeled 50 which point to different regions/structures.
Element 15 seemingly points to open space.
Elements 14, 16 and 12 all seem to point to the rotor.
Elements 32 and 34 point to the same component.
Elements 21 and 33 point to the same structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show upper electromagnetic filed inducing means embedded in a downwardly sloping portion, an upper wall of the chamber and lower electromagnetic field inducing means embedded in an upwardly sloping portion of a lower wall of the chamber as described in the claims/specification. Figure 4 shows electromagnetic field inducing means 81/82/83/84/85/83 however these are not shown as embedded and no downwardly sloping portion or upwardly sloping portions are shown, in fact the drawing is unclear. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 5-6 are also objected to. Both figures have element 32 pointing to different components.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: electromagnetic field inducing means in several claims. This is considered to be an electromagnetic coil, and equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1:
lines 3-4 recite “the longitudinal axis”, this language lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “a longitudinal axis”.
line 7 recites “the position” which lacks antecedent basis and should read “a position”.
line 12 recites “a central longitudinal axis”, this language lacks proper antecedent basis and is not consistent with lines 3-4. This language should be amended to maintain consistency and should read “the longitudinal axis”. As an alternative lines 3-4 could be amended to read “a central longitudinal axis” in which case line 12 should then read “the central longitudinal axis”.
line 16 recites “the electromagnetic field” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “an electromagnetic field”.
line 17 recites “the position” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “a position”.
line 18 recites “in three dimensions” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “in the three dimensions”.
Claim 8 recites “the direction” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should be amended to read “a direction”.
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 5, 10 and 20 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.
The term “about” in claims 5 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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, and/or the actual range cannot be determined from the specification or the claim language.
Claims 5 and 20 recite “wherein the permanent magnets and the electromagnetic field inducing means are orientate at an incline or a decline angle”. The language is indefinite in that it is unclear what the permanent magnets and the electromagnetic field inducing means are orientate at an incline or decline (at an incline or a decline angle) with respect to. For instance they could be orientated with respect to each other or with respect to other component or with respect to an axis.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the upper electromagnetic filed inducing means are embedded in a downwardly sloping portion of an upper wall of the chamber and the lower electromagnetic field inducing means are embedded in an upwardly sloping portion of a lower wall of the chamber”. The upper and lower electromagnetic field inducing means are shown in figure 1 as coils embedded in what appears to be the housing of the pump. However, nowhere in the drawings are there downwardly sloping portions, an upper wall, upwardly sloping portion or a lower wall. This structure is not shown nor is the claimed structure understood; the claim is therefore indefinite.
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 1-4, 6-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allaire et al. US 2008/0240947.
Regarding claim 1: Allaire discloses a blood pump (“centrifugal blood pump”, Title) including:
a housing 4 (figures 1-3) including a blood inlet 1 (figures 1-3) with an inlet chamber 2 (figure 3) and a blood outlet 3 (figures 1-3), the housing is comprised of 4A (figure 3) the top half and 4B (figure 3) the bottom half which create an internal chamber, a rotor 7 (figure 3 “The impeller 7 is designed to function as the rotor”, paragraph 0039), the rotor including multiple blades 15 (“vane”, figure 3) and a central opening 8 (figure 2) aligned coaxially with a longitudinal axis of the chamber 2 (figure 2) the rotor rotates within the chamber when blood is received in the chamber via the inlet port, blood is directed via the blades to the outlet port (paragraphs 0012 and 0039); and
a bearing system for controlling a position of the rotor relative to the internal chamber of the housing (“hybrid integrated EM/PM bearing”, paragraph 0051), the bearing system including;
permanent magnets 18 (figure 6B) embedded in the rotor;
PNG
media_image1.png
845
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Figure 3 of Allaire which shows the permanent magnets orientated at an angle with respect to the motor coils. The single chamber is created by housing 4A and 4B which then houses the various components.)]a plurality of electromagnetic field inducing means 16 (“motor coil”, figure 5B) embedded in the housing wherein the permanent magnets and the electromagnetic field inducing means are orientated at an include or a decline to a horizontal plane that is perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis of the chamber (figure 3);
wherein an electric current passed through each of the electromagnetic field inducing means is controlled independently and the permanent magnets embedded in the rotor are influenced by an electromagnetic field for controlling a resultant force between the rotor and the housing in three-dimensions to control a position of the rotor relative to the internal chamber of the housing in the three-dimensions and for driving rotation of the rotor within the chamber of the housing (paragraphs 0050-51).
Regarding claim 2: Allaire discloses that the permanent magnets 18 and the electromagnetic field inducing means 16 control the position of the rotor within the internal chamber of the housing in an axial direction and in any direction in a plane normal to the axis direction (paragraphs 0050-51).
Regarding claims 3-4: Allaire discloses that the permanent magnets 18 (figure 5B) and the electromagnetic field inducing means 16 (figure 7A-7C) are disposed radially about the rotor (figure 3, paragraphs 0047-48). The permanent magnets are also axially spaced from the electromagnetic field inducing means (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6: Allaire discloses that the electromagnetic field inducing means 16 (“motor coil”, figure 7A-C) include wire coils (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 7: Allaire discloses that the electromagnetic field inducing means include wire coils 24/25/26/21 (figure 10) disposed radially about the central longitudinal axis of the housing at equally spaced intervals (figure 10).
Regarding claim 8: Allaire discloses upper and lower electromagnetic field inducing means spaced apart in a direction of the central longitudinal axis of the housing 5/6 (figure 3).
Regarding claim 9: Allaire discloses that the upper and lower electromagnetic field inducing means are orientated symmetrically about a horizontal plane (figure 3), they are also at “an angle” which is equivalent. The language is broadly interpreted to include all inclines and all declines, even those which are zero incline and zero decline. The magnets are shown aligned.
Regarding claim 10 as understood: Allaire discloses upper and lower electromagnetic field inducing means 5/6, (figure 3) these upper and lower electromagnetic field inducing means 5/6 are considered to be embedded in the upper and lower housing members 4A/4B (“housing”, figure 3), as is seen in figure 2 the walls of the device and the components inside all slope and therefore these are considered to be at a slope.
Regarding claim 11: Allaire discloses that the blood pump includes a rotor position system for detecting the position of the rotor relative to the internal chamber (paragraphs 0054, 0056 and 0060 “proximity sensor(s) to measure the position of the impeller”).
Regarding claim 18: Allaire discloses that the rotor position detection system detects the relative position of the rotor within the internal chamber in three dimensions including the axial direction and any direction in a plane normal to the axial direction (paragraphs 0050-51).
Regarding claim 19: Allaire discloses a stator 11 (figure 3) embedded in the housing with electromagnetic field inducing means, and the permanent magnets embedded in the rotor are influenced by a magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic field inducing means embedded in the housing to drive the rotation of the rotor (figure 3, paragraphs 0050-51).
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 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire et al. US 2008/0240947 in view of Ayre et al. US 2005/0025630.
Regarding claims 5 and 20 as understood: Allaire discloses the claimed invention including, as shown, magnets 18 and motor coils 16 aligned at angles (figure 3, see above). However Allaire does not disclose the angle or tilt of the magnets. Ayre however teaches of tilting the magnets to create a magnetization direction around 15-30 degrees (paragraph 0118). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Allaire to include magnets tilting the magnetization direction from 15-30 degrees, as taught by Ayre, in order to achieve greater motor efficiency (Ayre, paragraph 0118).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire et al. US 2008/0240947 in view of Bramm et al. US 4,763,032.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16: Allaire discloses the claimed invention including a position sensing system (paragraphs 0054, 0056 and 0060), however Allaire does not specifically disclose magnetic field sensors disposed radially about the rotor and angularly spaced apart while embedded in the housing with the sensors influenced by the permanent magnets for determining position.
Bramm however teaches of a magnetic rotor bearing (abstract) which includes a permanent/electromagnetic arrangement 6a/6b (figure 1), driving electromagnets 10a/10b (figure 1), bar magnets 18a/18b (figure 1) and position sensors 8a/8b (figure 1). The bar magnets 18a/18b (figure 1) are located within the rotor and the position sensors 8a/8b (figure 1) are located in the housing of the pump 2. All of the components are angularly and radially spaced apart. In this design by Bramm the magnets and sensors are operably connected to a position circuit 9 or a control circuit 7. The power control circuit 10 drives the electromagnets 10a/10b, sensed signals are received from position sensors 8a/8b and fed into the position sensing circuit 9, the position sensing circuit then provides sensed position information to control circuit 7 (figure 1). This allows for the axial position of the rotor to be adjusted (column 10, line 1 though column 11 , line 36). Note that the bar magnets18a/18b are within the rotor 1 (figure 1). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Allaire to include magnetic field sensors disposed radially about the rotor and angularly spaced apart while embedded in the housing with the sensors influenced by the permanent magnets for determining position, as taught by Bramm, in order to stabilize the rotor in the proper orientation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire et al. US 2008/0240947 in view of Bramm et al. US 4,763,032 and further in view of Noh et al. US 2017/0040868.
Regarding claim 15: Allaire/Bramm discloses the claimed invention however Allaire/Bramm does not disclose the sue of six position sensors. Noh however teaches of using six position sensors (paragraph 0067). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Allaire/Bramm to include six position sensors, as taught by Noh, in order to collect rotor position information.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire et al. US 2008/0240947 in view of Bramm et al. US 4,763,032 and further in view of Bolyard et al. US 2012/0130153.
Regarding claim 17: Allaire/Bramm discloses the claimed invention however Allaire/Bramm does not disclose the use of back EMF to determine rotor imbalance. Bolyard however teaches of a blood pump (“circulatory support” title) which uses a back EMF sensing circuit which energizes two coils while sensing on the third coil to determine polarity changes (paragraph 0148), the rotational position of the rotor is also determined using back EMF (paragraphs 0006 and 0153). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Allaire/Bramm to include the use of back EMF, as taught by Bolyard, in order to estimate rotational position of the rotor (paragraph 0006).
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