DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication dated 08 July 2026 concerning Application No. 18/676,020 filed on 28 May 2024.
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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-26, 29-38, 41-44 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability; claims 21, 30, 33, 42, and 43 have been amended; claims 1-20, 27, 28, 39, and 40 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-26, 29-38, and 41-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite a moving portion of an actuator, including wherein the moving portion is in mechanical communication with a first end of the membrane and elastically coupled to the housing, wherein the moving portion assumes a neutral position when the electromagnetic coil ceases generating the magnetic field, and wherein the membrane is suspended via tension from the first end to the second end. The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations in the updated text of the rejection below.
Specifically regarding the membrane, Applicant argues that “both ends of the membrane in Drevet are connected to the pump structure,” leading to the conclusion that “in Drevet, the membrane is not suspended via tension” (Arguments, p. 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion and directs Applicant to those portions of Drevet in which the membrane is described as being under tension. For example, Drevet describes “means to keep the membrane under tension enable it to constitute a medium for waves travelling from the edge of the membrane subjected to the excitation force towards its opposite edge” ([0011]), specifically that “the membrane 9 is maintained under tension by members (not shown) developing forces 12 and 13 in opposite directions and applied to the membrane at the edge 11 and at the edge 14 which is near the delivery orifice 3” ([0025]). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that Drevet describes a membrane that is suspended via tension.
Regarding the first part of Applicant’s arguments, that “both ends of the membrane in Drevet are connected to the pump structure,” the Examiner respectfully submits that the membrane described by Applicant is also connected at two ends to the pump structure. For example, Applicant describes that “because magnetic ring assembly 76 may be rigidly affixed to posts 81, which in turn may be rigidly affixed to first suspension ring 79 and second suspension ring 80, the elastic properties of the suspension rings permit magnetic ring assembly 76 to move up towards first electromagnetic coil 77 or downward toward second electromagnetic coil 78, depending upon the polarity of magnetic fields generated by the electromagnetic rings,” ([0069]), and further that “membrane assembly 82 may be suspended by posts 81 within flow channel 101 below the bottom surface of flanged portion 87 and above the interior surface of lower housing portion 25” ([0080], emphasis added). Applicant’s membrane is suspended via posts 81 or via suspension rings, which are structural elements on either side of the membrane which act to impose the tension on the membrane.
Stated in another way, both ends of the membrane must be attached to some structural element in order for the membrane to be maintained under tension. One end of the membrane cannot be a “free end,” as seemingly being claimed by Applicant, as the resulting membrane would not be under tension.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that Drevet describes the limitation of “causing a wavelike motion to propagate across the membrane from the first end of the membrane to a second end of the membrane that is suspended via tension” as recited in the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-23, 30-35, and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevet (US 2002/0146333 A1) in view of Abe (US 2005/0261543 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 33, Drevet describes a method for pumping a fluid using a pump comprising a housing ([0010], [0025]), the method comprising
causing at least one electromagnetic coil to energize to generate a magnetic field, the at least one electromagnetic coil disposed in the housing of the blood pump and configured to cause a moving portion of an actuator and a membrane disposed within the housing of the blood pump to move ([0032] - [0033], [0037]), the moving portion in mechanical communication with a first end of the membrane and elastically coupled to the housing ([0025])
causing the at least one electromagnetic coil to cease generating the magnetic field thereby permitting the moving portion to assume a neutral position of the moving portion within the housing ([0032])
wherein causing the at least one electromagnetic coil to energize to generate the magnetic field and subsequently cease generating the magnetic field causes the first end of the membrane to move from a first position to second position causing a wavelike motion to propagate across the membrane ([0025], [0032]) from the first end of the membrane to a second end of the membrane that is suspended via tension ([0025]), thereby causing fluid to enter the pump, move across the membrane, and exit the pump ([0025], [0032])
Regarding claims 21 and 33, Drevet does not explicitly disclose wherein the pump is a blood pump implanted in a patient, configured for pumping blood. Drevet does, however, describe that the pump is to be used for biomedical applications ([0009]), and Drevet describes the limitations of the existing pumps when it comes to pumping blood ([0005]). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that Drevet suggests that the disclosed fluid pumps may be blood pumps implanted in a patient. In a similar reference, Abe also describes a method for pumping fluid ([0010]), including wherein the pump is a blood pump implanted in a patient ([0049]). As Abe is also directed towards membrane pumps and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a pump similar to that described by Drevet such that it is an implantable blood pump configured to be implanted in the heart of a patient, as described by Abe, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting pump to be used in a wider array of biomedical procedures.
Regarding claims 22 and 34, Drevet describes wherein the at least one electromagnetic coil is configured to interface with a magnetic component disposed within the pump and coupled to the membrane ([0032] - [0033]).
Regarding claims 23 and 35, Drevet describes wherein causing the at least one electromagnetic coil to energize to generate the magnetic field causes the magnetic component to move thereby causing the first end of the membrane to move ([0032]).
Regarding claims 30 and 42, Drevet describes wherein the second position is a neutral position of the first end of the membrane ([0032]).
Regarding claims 31 and 43, Abe describes implanting the blood pump at a heart of the patient ([0049]).
Regarding claims 32 and 44, Abe describes wherein the blood pump is configured to pump blood as a left ventricular assist device ([0032], [0049]).
Claims 24, 29, 36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevet in view of Abe, further in view of Hahndel et al. (US 6,074,365 A).
Regarding claims 24 and 36, Drevet in view of Abe suggests the method of claim 21 and the blood pump system of claim 33, but Drevet and Abe do not explicitly disclose causing a second at least one electromagnetic coil to energize to generate a second magnetic field, the second at least one electromagnetic coil disposed in the blood pump. However, Hahndel also describes an implantable blood pump (col 2:7-14), including the use of a second electromagnetic coil to energize to generate a second magnetic field, the second electromagnetic coil disposed in the blood pump (col 3:22-40). As Hahndel is also directed towards implantable blood pumps and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a second electromagnetic coil similar to that described by Hahndel when using the pump described by Drevet and Abe, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting pump to maintain more control over the membrane.
Regarding claims 29 and 41, Hahndel describes wherein the at least one electromagnetic coil causes the first end of the membrane to move upwards when the at least one electromagnetic coil is energized and the second at least one electromagnetic coil causes the first end of the membrane to move upwards or downwards when the at least one electromagnetic coil is energized (col. 3:48-63, bending-elastic membrane as described in col 3: 4-16).
Claims 25, 26, and 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevet in view of Abe and Hahndel, further in view of Lanigan et al. (US 2015/0014558 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Drevet in view of Abe and Hahndel suggests the method of claim 24 and the blood pump system of clam 36, but Drevet, Abe, and Hahndel do not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic field has a first polarity, the second magnetic field has a second polarity, and the first polarity is different than the second polarity. However, Lanigan also describes electromagnetic assemblies which may be used with blood pumps ([0108]), including wherein a first magnetic field has a first polarity, a second magnetic field has a second polarity, and the first polarity is different than the second polarity ([0088]). As Lanigan is also directed towards electromagnetic assemblies for use with blood pumps and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the electromagnetic coils such that they have different polarities, as described by Lanigan, when using the blood pump described by Drevet, Abe, and Hahndel, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting blood pump to better control the motion of the membrane.
Regarding claims 26 and 38, Lanigan describes wherein the second at least one electromagnetic coil is caused to energize at the same time as the at least one electromagnetic coil is caused to cease generating the magnetic field ([0099], the valves containing the electromagnetic components may be actuated simultaneously).
Regarding claim 37, Lanigan describes wherein the magnetic field has a first polarity, the second magnetic field has a second polarity, and the first polarity is the same as the second polarity ([0062]).
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
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 Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM EST. 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 Layno, can be reached by telephone 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights