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 § 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 12-13 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.
The term “basic” in claim 12 (“basic shape”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basic” 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. Here, it is unclear what qualifies and what does not qualify as a “basic” shape, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear/indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the clusters" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously recited multiple clusters.
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.
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 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0256801 A1 to Conyers et al. (hereinafter “Conyers”) in view of US 2021/0330960 A1 to Hall et al. (hereinafter “Hall”).
Regarding Claim 1, Conyers teaches a blood pump control device (see e.g. Para. 14: “The system includes an implantable blood pump, an external controller configured to supply power to the implantable blood pump and including an external controller input connector, a battery module including a housing and one or more battery cells disposed within the housing, and a connector cable”), comprising:
an electronic control unit (14); and
an energy storage (16) detachably connectable to the electronic control unit via a plug connection (28 + 30 + (26 and/or 36)), wherein
the plug connection is configured to establish a mechanical connection and an electrical connection between the electronic control unit and the energy storage (see e.g. Para. 53), and
the plug connection comprises:
a frame of a housing of the electronic control unit (see e.g. FIGS. 4-5); and
a frame insertion element (see e.g. Para. 11: “In some embodiments, the electrical conductors include two redundant pairs of conductors arranged symmetrically on opposite sides of the optical fiber to enable coupling of the output connector to the input connector in each of two opposite orientations”; also see Paras. 23, 27, 39, 53 and 60 which describe this same two-orientation setup), wherein
the frame and the frame insertion element have one or more electrical coupling pairs to establish the electrical connection (see e.g. Para. 11: “In some embodiments, the electrical conductors include two redundant pairs of conductors arranged symmetrically on opposite sides of the optical fiber to enable coupling of the output connector to the input connector in each of two opposite orientations”; also see Paras. 23, 27, 39, 53 and 60 which describe this same two-orientation setup), and
the one or more electrical coupling pairs are arranged to establish the electrical connection between the energy storage and the electronic control unit in the two or more orientations (see e.g. Para. 11: “In some embodiments, the electrical conductors include two redundant pairs of conductors arranged symmetrically on opposite sides of the optical fiber to enable coupling of the output connector to the input connector in each of two opposite orientations”; also see Paras. 23, 27, 39, 53 and 60 which describe this same two-orientation setup).
Conyers fails to teach that the frame insertion element is “of a housing of the energy storage” (rather, Hall uses a cable which connects to the energy storage). However, it was known to directly plug a battery into a blood pump controller directly without use of a cable. Hall teaches a blood pump controller (12) having a removable battery housing (14) (i.e. energy storage) that inserts into the controller via a frame insertion element which is of a housing of the energy storage (see e.g. FIGS. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Conyers to omit the cable and provide for a battery housing that directly plugs into the controller housing, as seen in Hall, because this would advantageously reduce the overall clutter of the system on the person who is wearing and using it.
Regarding Claim 2, Conyers as modified teaches wherein the frame and the frame insertion element each have one or more mirror axes in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction, and the electrical coupling pairs are arranged symmetrically with respect to the one or more mirror axes (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Conyers as modified teaches wherein each coupling pair comprises an electrical contact arranged on the electronic control unit and a mating electrical contact arranged on the energy storage (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Conyers as modified teaches wherein the plug connection is configured to transmit a plurality of different electrical quantities between the electronic control unit and the energy storage, and the plug connection comprises at least two electrical coupling pairs for the transmission of each of the different electrical quantities (see e.g. pairs 40 and/or 42, which are fully capable of transmitting different electrical quantities).
Regarding Claim 9, Conyers as modified further teaches wherein the plug connection further comprises: a sealing element configured to reduce an extent to which dust and/or water come into contact with the one or more electrical coupling pairs in a connected state of the plug connection (see e.g. Para. 16: “and is sealed to prevent water or dust ingression into the external controller via the external controller input connector” and Para. 57: “In many presently preferred embodiments, the input connector 26 does not include any moving parts, and can be sealed to prevent water or dust ingression into the housing of the external controller 14”).
Regarding Claim 10, Conyers as modified above fails to specifically teach wherein the electrical coupling pair comprises: a rod electrode; and a rod socket, wherein the rod electrode has a plurality of rod contact elements along an axial direction of the rod electrode for independently transmitting two or more electrical quantities, and the rod socket has a plurality of socket contact elements along an axial direction of the rod socket corresponding to the rod electrode. However, the Examiner takes official notice that this was an extremely common arrangement in electrical connections. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Conyers to use a rod and socket with axially-spaced electrical contacts since this would merely involve incorporating a well known configuration of electrical connectors to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Conyers as modified further teaches wherein the electrical coupling pair comprises: an electrical collector; and an electrical contact surface, wherein the electrical contact surface is arranged on a side of the frame insertion element pointing perpendicularly to the insertion direction, and the electrical collector is arranged on an inner side of the frame corresponding to the electrical contact surface (see e.g. FIGS. 4-6). Furthermore, given the prevalence of so many different electrical connectors in the art, it is well known to orient the contact surfaces pointing in any desired direction so long as proper contact is made in the intended connected arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Conyers to provide the contact surfaces in any desired direction since it would not affect the functionality of the device as long as sufficient contact is made.
Regarding Claim 12, Conyers as modified further teaches wherein the frame and the frame insertion element have a basic shape in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction, the basic shape is configured such that the frame insertion element is insertable into the frame in two orientations that differ from each other by a relative rotation of 180° between the frame and frame insertion element about an insertion direction (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein contacts of the electrical coupling pairs of the frame and the frame insertion element are arranged in a cluster-like manner within the frame or on the frame insertion element, wherein a distance between contacts of a cluster is smaller than a distance between the clusters (see e.g. FIG. 2 of Conyers; the claim as currently worded does not require more than one coupling pair, and does not explicitly require multiple clusters).
Regarding Claim 14, Conyers as modified further teaches an implantable blood pump (12); and the blood pump control device (14) according to claim 1 electrically connected to the implantable blood pump (see e.g. FIG. 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conyers in view of Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0338209 A1 to Chan et al. (hereinafter “Chan”).
Regarding Claim 5, Conyers as modified teaches claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach wherein the plug connection has at least two electrical coupling pairs configured such that a first electrical connection is established by one of the two coupling pairs when the frame insertion element is inserted into the frame before a second electrical connection is established by another coupling pair. However, this technique was known in the art of electrical connectors. Chan teaches this technique in an electrical connector for a medical device to achieve the same purpose disclosed by Applicant in the specification, i.e. to avoid the system going into an undefined state (see e.g. Para. 80: “On connection to these pods, there is utilitarian value with respect to the ground pin being made to make first contact before the power or signals are connected to the sound processor subassembly. This can have utilitarian value with respect to improving the likelihood that there is a proper return path. Conversely, if the power or signals are connected to the sound processor before the ground, the power may not necessarily have the correct return path and the signals may not necessarily have the right reference. In such an exemplary scenario, the system could potentially go into an undefined state”; also see Paras. 84-85 and claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Conyers to provide “wherein the plug connection has at least two electrical coupling pairs configured such that a first electrical connection is established by one of the two coupling pairs when the frame insertion element is inserted into the frame before a second electrical connection is established by another coupling pair” as seen in Chan because this would advantageously help prevent the system going into an undefined state, as taught by Chan.
Claims 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conyers in view of Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0311427 A1 to Duhamel et al. (hereinafter “Duhamel”).
Regarding Claim 6, in addition to the discussion of claim 1 above, Hall further teaches wherein the plug connection comprises: a releasable mechanical lock (“attachment mechanism 10” including e.g. latch 16 and actuator 18) configured to prevent removal of the frame insertion element from the frame after insertion of the frame insertion element into the frame regardless of orientation. Hall fails to teach that this lock functions “regardless of orientation” since Hall only has one orientation. However, another reference, Duhamel, teaches an analogous electrical connector which also has similar mechanical connectors which function in both of two orientations (see e.g. arms 208 in FIG. 10A and Para. 68: “n some embodiments, the electric couplings 166 and 204 may be symmetrically positioned about at least one axis. This allows the electric couplings 166 and 204 to be coupled in multiple orientations, such as with one of the couplings being rotated 180° relative to another. In some embodiments, the symmetry may be about two or more axes, which may allow electric couplings 166 and 204 to be coupled at 90° or smaller rotational increments. The use of the shapes and sizes of the outer peripheries matching, or substantially matching, along with the use of symmetrical electric couplings, helps to eliminate the need for other alignment features, such as visual markings, distinguishing textural features, and the like”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Conyers to provide a releasable mechanical lock that functions in at least two orientations, as seen in Duhamel, since this would provide the combined advantages of both (1) the multiple orientations as well as the (2) mechanical locking (instead of only one).
Regarding Claim 7, Conyers as modified further teaches wherein the electrical coupling pair comprises: a socket; and a pin insertable into the socket, wherein the pin is variable in length in the insertion direction, the pin comprises a spring configured to counteract a compression of the pin via a restoring force, and the socket and the pin are arranged such that the pin is compressed by the socket when the plug connection is in a connected state (see e.g. Para. 24, 38, 58 discussing spring-loaded metal pins; as such, in the combination above, the pins will be received in a socket when the battery housing is inserted into the controller housing).
Regarding Claim 8, Conyers as modified further teaches wherein the spring used in the electrical coupling pair is configured such that the spring forms a restoring force that is greater than a force required to close the releasable mechanical lock (see e.g. Para. 24, 38, 58 discussing spring-loaded metal pins; as such, in the combination above, the pins will make spring-loaded contact which must mean that the force provided by the springs is greater than that required to close the lock).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at (571)-272-4156. 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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792