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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5, 10 and 13 in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/1/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Drive unit configured to drive the impeller” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification in par. [0021] states “The drive unit may be a non-contact electromagnetic drive unit configured to rotatably drive the impeller relative to the housing. The drive unit may establish an attractive force on the impeller. Therefore, the impeller may comprise magnets which interact with the drive unit in that a rotating magnetic field is established within the drive unit for driving the impeller.” Par. [0060] states “The drive unit 26 comprises a stator 66 and an insulation assembly 68. The drive unit 22 is configured to establish a rotating magnetic field which interacts with the magnets 52 of the impeller 20 to cause the impeller 20 to rotate about the axis of rotation X.” For the purposes of examination, the “drive unit” will be interpreted as an electromagnetic unit that provides a rotating magnetic field (and equivalents thereof)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burgreen et al. (US Patent 6,093,001).
Regarding Claim 1, Burgreen discloses a blood pump 120 having a pump housing 122; an impeller 130 disposed in the pump housing; an electromagnetic drive unit 161 that produces a rotating magnetic field to drive the impeller 130; and a bearing arrangement 180, 184 having a pivot bearing, namely in the form of a “pivot-type ball-and-cup bearing” (Fig. 2a; col. 3, lines 19-27; col. 3, line 62-col. 4, line 24).
In regards to Claims 2 and 10, Burgreen discloses “a pivot-type ball-and-cup bearing” which encompasses a first bearing member 153, 155 (such as a ball) that has a first abutment portion (an outer periphery of the ball) that fits within and at least partially contacts a concave surface of element 146, 148 respectively, to allow the ball to pivot relative to the socket (concave portion), see Fig. 2a ad col. 3, line19-col. 4 line 24.
With regard to Claim 3, Burgreen discloses and edge or portion of ball 153, 155 fits within a cap 146, 148 that has a larger radius than the accommodated portion of th ball (it fits within the cap and thus must be slightly smaller radius than the cap), see Fig. 2a.
In regards to Claims 4 and 5, Burgreen discloses support elements 152, 154 that also abut balls 153, 155 and are affixed thereto wherein the radius of the support elements 152, 154 are larger than the radius of the ball since the ball fits within the radius of the support elements (Fig. 2a; col. 3, lines 15-37).
In regard to Claim 13, Applicant does not define any particular connection type to the impeller and housing or any specific means of connection to the impeller or housing. Burgereen discloses the ball-and-cup bearings are attached to impeller 130 directly (see “inner” edges of elements 153, 155 in Fig. 2a) and are also indirectly connected to housing 122 via their connection to stator members 126 and 128 via intervening portions 146, 148 (see Fig. 2a, col. 3, lines 3-14).
Claims 1-5, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akdis (PGPUB 2011/0238172).
Regarding Claims 1-5 and 10, Akdis discloses a blood pump having a pump housing 400; an impeller 411 disposed in the pump housing; a magnetic drive unit 406-410 that produces a rotating magnetic field to drive the impeller 412; and a bearing arrangement having a ball 414 (with a first abutment edge) socketed within a spherical cap 405 (having a receiving abutment edge) having a support base/frame, see Fig. 15; par. [0233, 0234, 0236, 0238].
In regards to Claim 13, Akdis discloses first pivot bearing member 414 is attached to the impeller 411 and a second pivot bearing member (spherical cap portion 405) is directly connected to pump housing 400 (Fig. 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siess et al., US Patent 10,842,921.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN PORTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00 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 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 (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.
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights