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 of Group I in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the first bearing member comprises a support element and a ball, wherein the support element comprises the first abutment portion, and wherein the ball abuts the first abutment portion and the second abutment portion” (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). There are only two figures (Figs. 12 and 15) that show a support element (128) and ball (126). Neither of these figures show a support element (128) that comprises the first abutment portion (122/124), wherein the ball (which includes the first abutment portion 122/124) abuts the first abutment portion and the second abutment portion (132). Specifically, in Figs. 12 and 15, the ball’s spherical surface (124) IS the first abutment portion, therefore these figures do not show that the ball abuts the first abutment portion. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviations (SIC, ATZ, ZTA and Al2O3) are improper. These abbreviations need to be spelled out first (before an abbreviation can properly be used). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “filed” should be “filled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “the first bearing member comprises a support element and a ball, wherein the support element comprises the first abutment portion, and wherein the ball abuts the first abutment portion and the second abutment portion” is not sufficiently supported by applicant’s originally filed specification. While it is noted that this is an original claim, applicant did not sufficiently describe this arrangement to show that applicant had possession of such a configuration. As discussed above, in relation to the drawing objections, the only detailed disclosure of a ball and support element in applicant’s specification shows/describes that the ball’s outer/spherical surface (124) IS the first abutment portion (122), so it’s unclear how the ball can abut the first abutment portion when it is the abutment portion. Due to the lack of explanation/details with regards to the currently claimed embodiment, the examiner contends that the claimed arrangement is not sufficiently described and therefore fails the written description requirement.
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 12-16 and 18 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.
[Claim 12] As detailed above, in relation to the drawing objection and the 112a written description, the claimed arrangement conflicts/contradicts the disclosed arrangement. This conflict between the specification and the claims creates confusion as to what the actual scope is. Specifically, how can the ball abut the first abutment portion when a portion of the ball, in particular the outer/spherical surface of the ball, IS the abutment portion? For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim language to be consistent with the disclosed arrangement, such that the ball includes the first abutment portion, i.e. the outer/spherical surface of the ball is the first abutment portion, and this first abutment portion (of the ball) abuts the second abutment portion; see Fig. 12.
[Claim 18] This claim recites “wherein the bearing arrangement comprises a pivot bearing and a radial bearing”. However, the independent claim recites “wherein the bearing arrangement comprises at least one bearing comprising a first bearing member and a second bearing member”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the claimed pivot bearing and radial bearing relate to the previously recited “at least one bearing”, “first bearing member”, “second bearing member” or if they relate to completely different/additional bearing members. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these bearings to further define the previously recited “at least one bearing”, specifically the at least one bearing includes/comprises two bearings, specifically a pivot bearing and a radial bearing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/228998* to Richert et al.
*While the WIPO is listed in the header of the rejection, the related US PGPub 2021/0199127 will be used for citation/explanation purposes.
[Claim 1] A blood pump (Fluid Pump, Title/Abstract; Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a pump housing (1) having a blood flow inlet (2) and a blood flow outlet (3) connected by a passage, an impeller (rotor 4 and conveying elements 7) disposed in said pump housing (Pars 0038-39),
a drive unit (motor stator 14a and 15a, and motor magnet 14b) configured to drive the impeller (Par 0040), and
a bearing arrangement (mechanical and/or hydrodynamic bearing 10a/10b, safety bearing 11a/11b and/or magnetic bearing 8a/8b) rotatably supporting the impeller (Par 0038),
wherein the bearing arrangement comprises at least one bearing (8, 10 or 1 comprising a first bearing member (first bearing component 10a) and a second bearing member (second bearing component 10b),
wherein the first bearing member comprises a first abutment portion and the second bearing member comprises a second abutment portion (concave/convex portions of the bearing components 10a and 10b; Par 0038),
wherein the first abutment portion comprises a first ceramic material or is composed of the first ceramic material and/ or wherein the second abutment portion comprises a second ceramic material or is composed of the second ceramic material (Pars 0035-36; Claim 14).
[Claim 2] There are only two options, either the ceramic material of the first bearing component 10a is the same or different from the ceramic material of the second bearing component. Therefore, inherently, Richter must teach one of these two options. Richter discloses that the first and second safety bearing component of the mechanical and/or hydrodynamic bearing (10a/10b) consists of ceramic (Par 0035); This is interpreted as a first and second bearing member “entirely composed of” ceramic.
[Claim 3] Richert discloses that the bearings are made of a metallic material (Par 0035) and coated with a ceramic material (Par 0036).
[Claims 4 and 6] Richter discloses that the bearings are coated with a diamond-like material (Par 0036); The examiner interprets this as the first and second abutment portion of the bearing coated with a diamond like carbon. Specifically, the disclosed “diamond-like materials” are either synonymous with diamond-like carbon or is a genus that anticipates the species; MPEP 2131.02: A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.". Furthermore, the examiner contends that diamond-like materials are at least partially composed of diamond and/or include diamond. See also Par 0012 which discloses “a pressure-bearing contact point is provided, which uses an ultrahard, wear-resistant material, preferably diamond”
[Claim 11] As shown in the figures and described in at least Par 0038, the first and second abutment portions, i.e. concave/convex portions, of the first and second bearing members (10a and 10b) at least partially contact each other; See e.g. Figs. 2, 5 and 6.
[Claim 18] Richert teaches at least two bearings (10a/b, 11a/b and 8a/b). The examiner interprets bearings (8a/b and 11a/b) as radial bearings (Par 0041; Figs. 5-6) and bearing 10a/b as a pivot bearing, in the same way that applicant’s bearing (40, Fig. 5) is a pivot bearing.
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 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richert.
[Claim 5] Richert discloses using a ceramic material for the first/second abutment portions of the first/second bearing members, but is silent to the specific type of ceramic. MPEP 2144.07 states “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try any ceramic material, including the specific ceramics claimed, as this is merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 below.
[Claim 17] Richert discloses a bearing member having an inner material made of metal, i.e. inherently a high thermal conductivity material, coated with an outer material made of ceramic or polymer, i.e. inherently a low thermal conductivity material. If applicant disagrees, then the examiner contends that such selection of higher and lower thermal conductivity materials is obvious. Specifically, MPEP 2144.07 states “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try/select any metal, including high conductivity metals which are relatively pervasive, and any ceramic or polymer material, including low conductivity ceramics/polymers which are relatively pervasive, as this is merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The resulting arrangement/configuration, i.e. an inner higher thermal conductivity material surrounded by an outer lower thermal conductivity, is the exact same structural arrangement claimed. Specifically, the ceramic/polymer coating is interpreted as a hollow portion of the bearing filled with a higher conductivity material. Specifically, filling a hollow portion is considered product-by-process, and the resulting structure taught by Richert is substantially identical to applicant’s claimed structure; MPEP 2113.
However, if applicant disagrees, the examiner contends that the claimed configuration and processing of making the claimed bearing would be obvious to a POSITA, specifically it would be obvious to design/make a bearing with an inner/central core made of a high conductivity material, e.g. metal, and an outer/surrounding portion made of a low conductivity material, e.g. polymer or ceramic, in any known way/manner, as a result of routine engineering/design considerations.
Claims 5 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0343997 to Granegger.
[Claim 5] Richert is discussed above, including teaching a bearing member made of a ceramic material, but fails to explicitly teach the specific type of ceramic claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, i.e. blood/fluid pumps, Granegger discloses a similar bearing arrangement made of silicon carbide (SIC) or aluminum oxide (Al2O3); see at least Pars 0019, 0048, 0074, 0077 and claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try/choose the specific type of ceramic, e.g. silicon carbide (SIC) or aluminum oxide (Al2O3), as taught by Granegger, for the ceramic material of the bearing taught by Richert, as these materials are known/used in similar bearings for blood pumps, and are specifically suitable for this purpose due to their hardness (Par 0019 of Granegger).
[Claim 12] As discussed above, in relation to the 112b rejection, the examiner is interpreting the claimed arrangement to be the structural configuration shown/described in relation to applicant’s Fig. 12. Richert fails to explicitly teach such a configuration. However, in the same field of endeavor, i.e. blood/fluid pumps, Granegger (Fig. 1) discloses the claimed arrangement of a bearing including a support element (28 or 48) and ball (20 or 40) with the spherical/outer surface of the ball being the first abutment portion (24 or 44) that abuts a second abutment portion (26 or 46); see also Figs. 4, 5 and 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bearing taught by Richert (10a/10b) for the bearing taught by Granegger, as a simple substitution of one known type of bearing for another to obtain predictable results.
[Claims 13-16] Granegger discloses that the ball is made of a ceramic material, diamond or a metallic material, e.g. metal carbide (Par 0019). Furthermore, similar to Richert, Granegger discloses a ceramic or metal bearing coated with a diamond-like carbon (Par 0070).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richert as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2009/0236147 to Koltermann et al.
[Claim 8] Richert is discussed above and specifically teaches a bearing that includes a coating made of a diamond-like material/carbon, but is silent to this diamond-like material/carbon being doped with boron. However, Koltermann, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, e.g. coatings for bearing abutment portions, discloses a boron-doped diamond-like carbon material used as a coating for a bearing (Pars 0007 and 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the DLC coating taught by Richert for the boron-doped DLC coating taught by Koltermann, as this is a simple substitution of one known diamond-like material/carbon for another to obtain predictable results, specifically as a coating on bearing abutment surfaces.
[Claim 9] Richert discloses multiple layers of coating (Par 0036), therefore it would have been obvious to try the boron-doped DLC coating layer as an interlayer, as this is merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success
[Claim 10] The amount of boron to carbon ratio is considered a result effective variable, and it would be obvious to choose/try any known ratio or percentage, as an optimization of a result effective variable; see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights