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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for the following reasons. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract filed on 10/11/2024 has more than 150 words.
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.
Such claim limitations which do use the word “means” and are being interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is/are:
In re claims 8-14:
“rotation drive control means”, which lacks corresponding structure in the specification, and therefore the scope of the limitation is indefinite (see section Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 112 below).
“revolution drive control means”, which according to the specification, the corresponding structure is a “digital signal processor (DSP)” ([0075]; Fig. 3).
In re claim 16:
“a computing means”, which lacks corresponding structure in the specification, and therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite (see section Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 112 below).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-16 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.
In re claim 8, the claim limitation “a rotation drive control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 9-16 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 16, the claim limitation “a computing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hijikata et al. (Hijikata, Wataru, et al. "Detection of thrombosis in a magnetically levitated blood pump by vibrational excitation of the impeller." Artificial organs 44.6 (2020): 594-603.)
In re claim 1, Hijikata discloses a drive control method (see section “2| MATERIALS AND METHODS”) for a magnetically levitated blood pump (FIGURE 3: “photographs of the magnetically levitated blood pump”) for rotating an impeller (“Impeller”) in a housing (combination of “Top housing” and “Bottom housing”) in a state magnetically levitated by electromagnets (apparent),
wherein the impeller is rotated and revolved by moving the impeller to trace a revolving locus (FIGURE 2: indicated by circular arrow; Examiner notes that “Ω” indicates “rotational speed of the impeller”, see pg. 596, paragraph 2 ) in which a rotation center (FIGURE 2: gray circle) of the impeller is moved in a radial direction (FIGURE 2: “X”; “2.2 | Evaluation of the relationship between the narrowest radial gap and the phase difference”, lines 7-11).
In re claim 3, Hijikata discloses wherein the impeller is revolved in a circular orbit (FIGURE 2).
In re claim 8, see above (In re claim 1).
Hijikata also discloses: a drive control device (FIGURE 3, FIGURE 4) comprising:
a *rotation drive control means (FIGURE 3: “Motor”)
a revolution drive control means (FIGURE 4: “Digital Signal Processor”)
*As best understood, for examination purposes, “a rotation drive control means” is being interpreted as any component that facilitates rotation of an impeller.
In re claim 10, see above (In re claim 3).
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 1).
Hijikata also discloses a magnetically levitated blood pump system (FIGURE 3, FIGURE 4).
In re claim 16, Hijikata discloses further comprising a computing means (FIGURE 4: “Synchronous phase process unit”) for calculating a phase difference (φ; see FIGURE 4 caption: “phase difference φ can be measured”) between
a locus of displacement (FIGURE 4: φx) of the impeller when the impeller is revolved and
a locus of current (φi) of electromagnets for revolving the impeller.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshi et al. (US 2009/0118625).
In re claim 1, Hoshi discloses a drive control method (abstract) for a magnetically levitated blood pump (Fig. 5 (A) and (B)) for rotating an impeller ([0029]: “centrifugal impeller (not illustrated) is molded on to the rotor 34”) in a housing ([0049]: “pump casing”) in a state magnetically levitated by electromagnets ([0029]; electromagnets “32X”, “32Y”),
wherein the impeller is rotated and revolved by moving the impeller to trace a revolving locus (Fig. 9: indicated by curved arrows) in which a rotation center (“center of rotor”, indicated by black dot) of the impeller is moved in a radial direction (radial movement indicated by arrow between two dots).
In re claim 3, Hoshi discloses wherein the impeller is revolved in a circular orbit (Fig. 9).
In re claim 5, Hoshi discloses wherein the impeller is revolved to trace a revolving locus (Fig. 9) rotating in an oscillation direction (indicated by curved arrows) while simple oscillation of a rotation center (indicated by black dot) of the impeller in a radial direction (indicated by arrow between two dots).
In re claim 8, see above (In re claim 1).
Hoshi also discloses: a drive control device (Fig. 5(A) and (B)) comprising:
a rotation drive control means (component responsible for “rotation” of centrifugal impeller ; [0009])
a revolution drive control means (40)
In re claim 10, see above (In re claim 3).
In re claim 12, see above (In re claim 5).
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 1).
Hijikata also discloses a magnetically levitated blood pump system (Fig. 5(A) and (B)).
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Hijikata et al. (Hijikata, Wataru, et al. "Detection of thrombosis in a magnetically levitated blood pump by vibrational excitation of the impeller." Artificial organs 44.6 (2020): 594-603.), in view of Malagoli et al. (IT 202000030332).
In re claim 2, Hijikata does not discloses, wherein a period of revolution of the impeller is an integer multiple of a period of rotation of the impeller or an integer division of a period of rotation of the impeller.
Magoli discloses a blood pump that has a period of revolution defined as an integer multiple of a period of rotation of the impeller [00434-00426]. As described in Magoli, this relationship is advantageous as it ensures that the blood pump will return to its original state, that is, the blood pumps position at a beginning of a revolution [00426].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hijikata to include wherein a period of revolution of the impeller is an integer multiple of a period of rotation of the impeller or an integer division of a period of rotation of the impeller, as taught by Magoli. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that the impeller returns to its same state as before the revolution [00426].
In re claim 9, see above (In re claim 2).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Hoshi et al. (US 2009/0118625), in view of Malagoli et al. (IT 202000030332).
In re claim 2, Hoshi does not disclose, wherein a period of revolution of the impeller is an integer multiple of a period of rotation of the impeller or an integer division of a period of rotation of the impeller.
Magoli discloses a blood pump that has a period of revolution defined as an integer multiple of a period of rotation of the impeller [00434-00426]. As described in Magoli, this relationship is advantageous as it ensures that the blood pump will return to its original state, that is, the blood pumps position at a beginning of a revolution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hoshi to include wherein a period of revolution of the impeller is an integer multiple of a period of rotation of the impeller or an integer division of a period of rotation of the impeller, as taught by Magoli. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that the impeller returns to its same state as before the revolution [00426].
In re claim 9, see above (In re claim 2).
Claims 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Hoshi et al. (US 2009/0118625), in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2021-204005A).
In re claim 4, Hoshi does not disclose, wherein the impeller is revolved in an elliptical orbit.
Takahashi discloses a drive control method for revolving a rotor in an elliptical orbit [0043]. Similar to Hoshi, Takahashi discloses driving the rotor by applying a series of drive signals (examples shown in FIG. 2; [0043]) to electrical elements positioned along both a Y-axis direction and an X axis direction [0033, 0034]. As disclosed by Takahashi, the elliptical orbit of the rotor can be changed by changing a phase difference between the drive signals applied to the electrical elements [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impeller orbit of Hoshi to be elliptical, as taught by Takahashi. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce fractional sliding and frictional wear of the rotor (Takashi, [0050]).
In re claim 11, see above (In re claim 4).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Hoshi et al. (US 2009/0118625), in view of Hijikata et al. (Hijikata, Wataru, et al. "Detection of thrombosis in a magnetically levitated blood pump by vibrational excitation of the impeller." Artificial organs 44.6 (2020): 594-603.)
In re claim 6, Hoshi discloses
wherein the impeller in the housing is revolved in a circular orbit (Fig. 9) by supplying
a first current (Fig. 5(A) and Fig. 5(B): arrow coming out of the bottom of 44) and
a second current (arrow coming out of the top of 44) to electromagnets (32X, 32Y)
for magnetic levitation orthogonally arranged in a X axis direction (“X”) and a Y axis direction (“Y”) orthogonal to a rotation axis direction (“Z”) of the impeller for magnetically levitating the impeller in the housing ([0029]: “rotor 34 magnetically levitated by electromagnets”, “…the centrifugal impeller (not illustrated) is molded on the rotor 34”) , while rotating the impeller in the housing by an electric motor ([0029]: “driving magnet”) with a magnetic coupling force ([0029]: “driving magnet for rotating and driving the centrifugal impeller”) .
Hoshi does not disclose: supplying a sine wave current and a cosine wave current to electromagnets.
Hijikata, like Hoshi, discloses a magnetically levitated blood pump (FIGURE 3) with an impeller (“Impeller”) that is rotated in a circular orbit (FIGURE. 2: indicated by black circular arrow). Hijikata discloses achieving such an orbit by applying a sinusoidal current to an electromagnet arranged adjacent to the impeller (FIGURE 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hoshi to have the first and second currents be a sine wave and cosine wave. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the application of sinusoidal waves is known in the art, as evidenced by Hijikata. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose a type of waveform that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield suppling “a sine wave current and a cosine wave current to electromagnets”.
In re claim 13, see above (In re claim 6).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Hoshi et al. (US 2009/0118625), in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2021204005A), in view of Hijikata et al. (Hijikata, Wataru, et al. "Detection of thrombosis in a magnetically levitated blood pump by vibrational excitation of the impeller." Artificial organs 44.6 (2020): 594-603.)
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hoshi unless indicated otherwise)
wherein the impeller in the housing is revolved in an elliptical orbit (see proposed modification above (In re claim 4)) by a deviating a phase (apparent as phase deviation creates elliptical orbit, see paragraph 52) of one of
a -first current (Fig. 5(A) and Fig. 5(B): arrow coming out of the bottom of 44) and
a second current (arrow coming out of the top of 44)
supplied to electromagnets (32X, 32Y) for magnetic levitation orthogonally arranged in a X axis direction (“X”) and a Y axis direction (“Y”) orthogonal to a rotation axis direction (“Z”) of the impeller for magnetically levitating the impeller in the housing ([0029]: “rotor 34 magnetically levitated by electromagnets”, “…the centrifugal impeller (not illustrated) is molded on the rotor 34”), while rotating the impeller in the housing by an electric motor ([0029]: “driving magnet”) with a magnetic coupling force ([0029]: “driving magnet for rotating and driving the centrifugal impeller”).
The proposed combination does not yield:
a sine wave current and a cosine wave current supplied to electromagnets
Hijikata, like Hoshi, discloses a magnetically levitated blood pump (FIGURE 3) with an impeller (“Impeller”) that is rotated in a circular orbit (FIGURE. 2: indicated by black circular arrow). Hijikata discloses achieving such an orbit by applying a sinusoidal current to an electromagnet arranged adjacent to the impeller (FIGURE 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second currents of the proposed combination to be a sine wave and cosine wave. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the application of sinusoidal waves is known in the art, as evidenced by Hijikata. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose a type of waveform that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “a sine wave current and a cosine wave current” being “supplied to electromagnets”.
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 7).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al. (US 2022/0187054) discloses a system for detecting rotor position (FIG. 3A-FIG. 3D; [0060])
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights