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 .
Response to Arguments
I. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s remarks concerning the previous rejections of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are persuasive in view of the amendments to both claims. The rejections are withdrawn.
II. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks concerning the previous obviousness rejections have been fully considered. The claim rejections have been updated below to address the new language added to claim 1. However, some of Applicant’s remarks are still potentially relevant to the updated rejections, and are thus addressed below.
First, Applicant remarks that the attachment mechanism 10 in Hall does not permit controller 12 to be attached to the battery housing in “two or more orientations that differ by a relative rotation …” The Examiner respectfully submits that this argument is moot because the rejection of claim 1 previously did not suggest incorporating the attachment mechanism 10 of Hall into the combination, nor did the combination require doing so. The combination as applied to claim 1 merely used Hall to for the teaching of attaching a battery housing directly into the controller housing instead of using a cable, which would not necessarily require incorporating Hall’s single-orientation attachment mechanism. Nevertheless, the updated rejection addresses this concern with the third reference, Duhamel, which shows how to achieve a connection with two (or more) orientations differing by relative rotation in which attachment mechanism are used.
Applicant also argues against the rationale for modifying Conyers, specifically arguing that there is no explanation as to why one skilled in the art would have been motivated to “reduce the overall clutter” of Conyers’ system, and that the modification would have changed Conyers’ principle of operation by using a single bulk device instead of multiple devices distributed around the user’s body. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The benefit of reducing overall clutter in enhancing user comfort would be clearly obvious to one skilled in the art. Integrating the battery into the controller would not make Conyers’ device unwearable. While the integrated unit would have slightly larger weight and size compared to a standalone controller, this would be offset by the fact that fewer total devices are distributed around the body, and at least one fewer cable is needed. One skilled in the art would understand this tradeoff and would find the pros and cons of both arrangements to be predictable. This would also not amount to a change in principle of operation, or rendering Conyers’ system inoperable for its intended purpose. Having the battery integrated with the controller would allow for all of the same functionality, and the removable of a cable, while advantageous, is not a significant enough change to be deemed a different principle of operation.
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 6-14 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”) in view of US 2018/0311427 A1 to Duhamel et al. (hereinafter “Duhamel”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, 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.
Conyers as modified further fails to teach “the frame is formed by a protruding portion of the housing of the electronic control unit, the protruding portion configured to receive the frame insertion element in the two or more orientations” and “wherein the plug connection comprises: a releasable mechanical lock 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 does teach 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, but 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 includes a protruding portion (see e.g. FIG. 10A, right portion; see annotated figure below) configured to receive a frame insertion element (see e.g. FIG. 10A, left portion labeled 198; see annotated figure below) also has similar mechanical connectors which function in both of two orientations (see e.g. arms 208 in FIG. 10A and Para. 68: “in 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”).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Conyers such that frame is formed by a protruding portion of the housing of the electronic control unit, the protruding portion configured to receive the frame insertion element in the two or more orientations, and a releasable mechanical locking connection that functions in at least two orientations, as seen in Duhamel, since this would provide the combined advantages of allowing multiple orientations both of which could mechanically lock to help secure the connection against unintended detachment.
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 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).
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 previously took official notice that this was an extremely common arrangement in electrical connections. Applicant’s subsequent reply did not traverse the Examiner's assertion of official notice; therefore, the facts under official notice are now taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) (“If applicant does not traverse the examiner' s assertion of official notice or applicant' s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner' s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate.”). 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 comprising multiple clusters, wherein a distance between contacts of a cluster is smaller than a distance between the clusters (see e.g. FIG. 2 of Conyers; one cluster of contacts 40+42 is on the left side of optical fiber 44, and the other cluster of contacts 40+42 is on the right side of optical fiber 44, and the distance between these clusters is shown to be twice as large as the distance between the contacts within a single cluster).
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 and Duhamel 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2012/0148195 A1 to Umeno: see e.g. the abstract and FIGS. 1, 4 and 5.
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 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
Prosecution Insights