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 .
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.
Claim 9 and its dependent claims 10, 12 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.
Regarding claim 9 and its dependents, claim 9 recites the limitation "the rotor permanent magnet" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 6 recites “a rotor permanent magnet” but the instant claim depends from claim 1 and not from claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hijikata (US 20120156071 A1; 6/21/2012; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hijikata teaches an extracorporeal magnetically levitated blood pump (Fig. 1; [0002]; [0010]), comprising:
a motor (Fig. 1; [0015]);
a pump head operably connected to the motor (Fig. 1; [0013]; [0015]), comprising:
a pump housing, with an inlet and an outlet (Fig. 1-2; [0012]; [0042]; [0108])
an impeller, which is accommodated in the pump housing and is configured to levitate in the pump housing and driven by the motor to rotate, so that blood is pumped from the inlet to the outlet; wherein the impeller comprises: an impeller housing and blades disposed on the impeller housing; a rotor is disposed in the impeller housing (Fig. 1-2; [0012]-[0013]; [0022]; [0038]; [0040]; [0111]), and an axial height of the rotor is 7.86-10.34 mm ([0044] “height of the rotor 11 is set to be 10 mm”; [0064]; MPEP 2131.03: A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range).
Regarding claim 23, Hijikata teaches wherein the impeller housing has an accommodating cavity for accommodating the rotor, a bottom of the accommodating cavity is covered by a bottom cover, and a cushion block is disposed between the rotor and the bottom cover (Fig. 1-2; Fig. 6a-6c; [0070] “a spacer 36 is attached to the rotating shaft 28 protruding from the bottom plate section 22 of the electro-magnet core 24,”; [0071] “A spacer 40 made from plastics is disposed between the motor 41 and the stator 21 in which torque transmission disc 31 is installed, and the driving shaft 42 of the motor 41, the coupling 43, the rotating shaft 28, and the bearings 29 are isolated by the plastic spacer 40”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hijikata as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Morello (US 20230121406 A1; Filed 4/23/2021).
Regarding claim 2, Hijikata does not teach wherein the axial height of the rotor is 8.56-9.87 mm. However, Morello teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 2; Fig. 15; [0037]) “By managing the height of the rotor relative to its diameter, it is possible to stabilize three spatial degrees of freedom passively.” ([0051]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Hijikata to include this teaching of Morello to manage height of rotor in order to optimize the design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the instant claim’s range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed limitation is a result-effective variable; MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Hijikata does not teach wherein the axial height of the rotor is 8.834-9.537 mm. However, Morello teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 2; Fig. 15; [0037]) “By managing the height of the rotor relative to its diameter, it is possible to stabilize three spatial degrees of freedom passively.” ([0051]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Hijikata to include this teaching of Morello to manage height of rotor in order to optimize the design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the instant claim’s range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed limitation is a result-effective variable; MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 13-17, 19, 22, 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 4 and its dependent claim(s) when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein on a half longitudinal section, on a side around a rotation axis, of the rotor, a middle line parallel to the rotation axis and at a position of a middle circle of the half longitudinal section is defined; a center of gravity of the half longitudinal section is located on a radial outer side of the middle line, and the position of the middle circle is defined as a position of one-half diameter of a sum of outer circle diameter and inner circle diameter of the half longitudinal section. This is best seen in instant Fig. 5 and described in instant specification p. 7 paragraph 2.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 6 and its dependent claim(s) when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, a rotor permanent magnet located on an outer side of the passive magnet and coupled with the stator assembly, and a balancing ring; the impeller is driven by the motor by virtue of coupling of the active magnet and the passive magnet, and levitates in the pump housing by virtue of the coupling effect of the rotor permanent magnet and the stator assembly; the balancing ring has an axial spacing part extending along an axial direction of the balancing ring and located between the passive magnet and the rotor permanent magnet and a radial bulge part protruding out of the axial spacing part in a radial direction of the balancing ring. Note that primary reference Hijikata (US 20120156071 A1; 6/21/2012; cited in IDS) teaches that its purpose to avoid use of permanent magnets ([0007]; [0010]).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 9 and its dependent claim(s) when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the rotor further comprises a sleeve ring sleeving outside the rotor permanent magnet, and a radial thickness of the sleeve ring is 0.0534-0.1763 mm. Note that primary reference Hijikata (US 20120156071 A1; 6/21/2012; cited in IDS) teaches that its purpose to avoid use of permanent magnets ([0007]; [0010]). Further, Chen (US 20200018318 A1; 1/16/2020) teaches extracorporeal blood pump magnetically levitated with rings (Abstract; Fig. 2-4), but the rings are permanent magnets ([0086] “annular permanent magnets…which are preferably continuous rings”) and not separate from the permanent magnets as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights