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 .
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 21-44 are pending and under consideration for patentability; claims 1-20 were cancelled and claims 21-44 were added as new claims via a Preliminary Amendment dated 19 September 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 28 May 2024 and 19 September 2024 have been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 25 and 26 be found allowable, claims 27 and 28 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 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 ([0010]), 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 blood pump and configured to cause a membrane disposed within the blood pump to move ([0032] - [0033], [0037])
causing the at least one electromagnetic coil to cease generating the magnetic field ([0032])
wherein causing the at least one electromagnetic coil to energize to generate the magnetic field and subsequently cease generating the magnetic field causes a first end of the membrane to move from a first position to second position causing a wavelike motion to propagate across the membrane, 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 first end of the membrane is caused to move from a second position to a neutral position when the at least one electromagnetic coil is caused to cease generating the magnetic field ([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 25-28 and 37-40 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 claims 25, 27, and 39, 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, 28, 38, and 40, 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
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 3796