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 .
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beeby et al. (US 2022/0401709 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Beeby discloses a method for determining a distance of travel of an actuator shaft of a drive unit for a thrombectomy system, the method (¶ [0255], [0309]) comprising:
identifying a mechanical zero position of an actuator shaft relative to a magnetic strip (¶ [0309] magnetic encoder would inherently have a reference position to measure the position of the actuator);
incrementing an incremental pulse count as the magnetic strip moves with the actuator shaft in a first direction (¶ [0255] sensors may generate pulses and/or encoder steps that may be indicative of the movement of the motor);
decrementing the incremental pulse count as the magnetic strip moves with the actuator shaft in a second direction opposite the first direction (¶ [0255] sensors may generate pulses and/or encoder steps that may be indicative of the movement of the motor);
determining a distance and direction traveled by the actuator shaft based on the incremental pulse count (¶ [0255] sensors may be configured such that the processor may indicate 20 steps for every physical movement of the motor); and
outputting the distance and/or direction to a user interface (¶ [0255] one or more sensors configured to detect a position and/or movement of a component other than the plunger may be part of a blood flow control device controller and/or a system controller).
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thor et al. (US 2016/0038163 A1) in view of Redmond et al. (US 2022/0195847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thor discloses a drive unit (200) for a thrombectomy system, the drive unit (200) comprising:
one or more panels (FIG. 8) enclosing an internal structure of the drive unit (200);
a vertically oriented reciprocating linear actuator assembly (84) extending between one or more support structures (76a-d) in an upper region of the drive unit (200), the vertically oriented reciprocating linear actuator assembly (84) including an actuator shaft (228);
a bracket (232, 234, 236) coupled to the actuator shaft (228) and moveable therewith, the bracket (232, 234, 236) including a first portion (232) extending generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the actuator shaft (228).
Thor does not disclose a magnetic strip affixed to a surface of the first portion of the bracket; and
a magnetic sensor positioned adjacent to a first end region of the bracket;
wherein the magnetic sensor is configured to determine a relative position of the actuator shaft.
Redmond discloses a magnetic strip (200; ¶ [0033] magnets in the linear rotor 150) affixed to a surface of the first portion of the bracket (150); and
a magnetic sensor (404; ¶ [0033] magnetic encoder counts the number of magnets in the linear rotor) positioned adjacent to a first end region of the bracket (150);
wherein the magnetic sensor (404) is configured to determine a relative position of the actuator shaft (132; ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Thor in view of Redmond to disclose a magnetic strip affixed to a surface of the first portion of the bracket; and a magnetic sensor positioned adjacent to a first end region of the bracket; wherein the magnetic sensor is configured to determine a relative position of the actuator shaft, for the advantages of monitoring the vertical displacement of the rod (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 2/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Redmond further discloses wherein the magnetic sensor (404) is secured within a housing (within stator 402) secured to an upper surface of a mounting plate (attachment means 410 or connector 504).
Regarding claim 4/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Thor further discloses wherein the first portion (232) of the bracket (232, 234, 236) is configured to extend through an opening (FIG. 19) in a mounting plate (226).
Regarding claim 5/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Redmond further discloses wherein the magnetic strip (200) is positioned between the bracket (150) and the magnetic sensor (404).
Regarding claim 6/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Redmond further discloses wherein the magnetic strip (200) includes a plurality of north and south pole pairs (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 7/6, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 6. Redmond further discloses wherein the north and south pole pairs extend along a length of the magnetic strip (200; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 9, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 10/9, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 9. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 10, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 11/10, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 10. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 11, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 12/11, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 11. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 12, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 13/12, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 12. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 13, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 14/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Redmond further discloses wherein the magnetic strip (200) has a length approximately equal to or greater than a stroke length of the actuator shaft (132; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 15/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Redmond further discloses wherein the magnetic strip (200) is linearly displaced in direct proportion to linear movement of the actuator shaft (132; ¶ [0033] movement of the linear rotor is measured to monitor the vertical displacement of the actuator shaft).
Regarding claim 16, Thor discloses a drive unit (200) for a thrombectomy system, the drive unit (200) comprising:
one or more panels (FIG. 8) enclosing an internal structure of the drive unit (200);
a vertically oriented reciprocating linear actuator assembly (84) extending between one or more support structures (76a-d) in an upper region of the drive unit (200), the vertically oriented reciprocating linear actuator assembly (84) including an actuator shaft (228);
a housing (FIG. 8);
a bracket (232, 234, 236) coupled to the actuator shaft (228) and moveable direct proportion therewith, the bracket (232, 234, 236) including a first portion (232) extending generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the actuator shaft (228).
Thor does not disclose a magnetic sensor secured within the housing;
a magnetic strip including a plurality of north and south pole pairs affixed to a surface of the first portion of the bracket between the bracket and the magnetic sensor.
Redmond discloses a magnetic sensor (404) secured within the housing (106);
a magnetic strip (200; ¶ [0033] magnets in the linear rotor 150) including a plurality of north and south pole pairs (FIG. 2) affixed to a surface of the first portion of the bracket (150) between the bracket (150) and the magnetic sensor (404);
While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitation “wherein the magnetic sensor is configured to increment or decrement an incremental pulse count as the magnetic strip moves with the actuator shaft and to determine a distance of travel of the actuator shaft relative to a mechanical zero position based on the incremental pulse count,” Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 17/16, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 16. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 17, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 18/16, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 16. While Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose the functional limitations of claim 18, Thor in view of Redmond does disclose all the structure of the claim. Thus, Thor in view of Redmond is inherently capable of the functions of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thor et al. (US 2016/0038163 A1) in view of Redmond et al. (US 2022/0195847 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gysen (US 2022/0077751 A1).
Regarding claim 3/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose wherein the magnetic sensor is mounted to a printed circuit board.
Gysen discloses wherein the magnetic sensor (161) is mounted to a printed circuit board (162).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Thor in view of Redmond to disclose wherein the magnetic sensor is mounted to a printed circuit board, for the advantages of directly fixing the sensors to the stator unit through the circuit board.
Regarding claim 8/1, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 1. Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose wherein the magnetic sensor comprises a system-on-a-chip.
Gysen discloses wherein the magnetic sensor (161) comprises a system-on-a-chip (¶ [0037] comprises corresponding electronics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Thor in view of Redmond to disclose wherein the magnetic sensor comprises a system-on-a-chip, as the electronics can be integrated in the stator unit (¶ [0036]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thor et al. (US 2016/0038163 A1) in view of Redmond et al. (US 2022/0195847 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (CN 113037018 A).
Regarding claim 19/16, Thor in view of Redmond was discussed above in claim 16. Thor in view of Redmond does not disclose wherein the magnetic strip is spaced 0.6 millimeters or less from magnetic sensor.
Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic strip (7) is spaced 0.6 millimeters or less (0.3 mm or less) from magnetic sensor (8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Thor in view of Redmond, further in view of Zeng to disclose wherein the magnetic strip is spaced 0.6 millimeters or less from magnetic sensor, for the advantages of improved precision, stability and system dynamic response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MINKI CHANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights