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, Claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 7/15/26 is acknowledged. Applicant has identified and elected Claims 1-13 as part of the species of Group I (See Reply of 7/15/26). 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)).
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species II and III, as identified by Applicant, there being no allowable generic claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/15/26.
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: a) “power transmission section” in claim 1, b) “rotating member” in Claims 3 and 4, c) “acceleration section” in claim 11.
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.
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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: 1) In Claim 1, “used to be” should be “configured to be”, 2) In Claim 2, “each is configured to has” should be corrected for grammar, 3) In claim 3, “to protect to the first” should be corrected for grammar, 4) In Claim 3, “a heart” should be “the heart”, 5) In Claim 4, “an aorta” should be “the aorta”, 6) In Claim 5, “the second rotating each” should be “the second rotating member each”, 7) In Claim 10, “the rotation” (both occurrences) should be “a rotation” or “rotation”, 8) In Claims 12-13, “the connection” should be “a connection”. 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 10-13 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.
Claim 10 combines two separate embodiments of the specification, without sufficient support. According to MPEP 2163.05.I.A: “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated”. According to MPEP 2163.03.V: “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated” and “The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement”. Furthermore, A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably concluded from the original disclosure that Applicant was in possession for an embodiment that combines “the cardiac transmission section is directly connected to the power cable to control the rotation of the first rotating member through the power cable; the aortic transmission section is directly connected to the power cable to control the rotation of the second rotating member through the power cable;” with “the cardiac transmission section is connected to the aortic transmission section, which is connected to the power cable to control the simultaneous rotation of the first rotating member and the second rotating member through the power cable”, as claimed in Claim 10. The closest support provided in the specification is “As shown in FIG. 10, in the above embodiment, the power transmission section 3 includes a cardiac transmission section 31, an aortic transmission section 32, and a power cable 33. The cardiac transmission section 31 can be directly connected to the power cable 33, so that the heart circulation pump 1 can be placed in the heart and work independently. The aortic transmission section 32 can be directly connected to the power cable 33, allowing the aortic circulation pump 2 to be placed inside the aorta and work independently. Alternatively, the cardiac transmission section 31 can be connected to the aortic transmission section 32, and then connected to the power cable 33 through the aortic transmission section 32, so that the heart circulation pump 1 can be placed in the heart and the aortic circulation pump 2 can be placed in the aorta, allowing both pumps to work simultaneously” (emphasis added). Clearly, the specification supports two alternative embodiments: one power transmission and connection arrangement between the power sections for independent control of each pump, and one such arrangement for simultaneous control of the two pumps. Applicant has not provided disclosure with sufficient particularity to adequately support their combination.
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 2-9, and 11-13 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 2, in “the heart circulation pump and/or the aortic circulation pump, each is configured” (emphasis added), the combination of “or” with “each” makes the claim unclear. It is not clear what the scope of “each” is, given that “or” makes one of the pumps optional in terms of the Coanda effect tube and Venturi supersonic nozzle configuration. Which makes it unclear as to whether both pumps are required to have these configurations.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the “far away” and “close to” are relevant and subjective. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are, and it is unclear what distances would make something “far away” or “close to”. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised with reasonable certainty of the scope of the invention. To the extent that Applicant is attempting to define relative distances between the inlet and outlet, they should be recited as such (e.g. “inlet is closer to X than the outlet” or similar).
In Claim 5, in line 5, “the rotating blades” lack antecedent basis. In addition, it is not clear whether the “a plurality of rotating blades” in line 6 is the same or different from “the rotating blades” of line 5.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0128659 by Heuring.
Regarding Claim 1, Heuring discloses a blood pump system (e.g. abstract, ¶ 3: LVAD pump) comprising:
a first pump capable for heart circulation, and capable to be used to be set inside the heart to extract blood from the heart into the aorta (e.g. Fig. 1D, Fig. 26A: pump 110 or pump 226; abstract, ¶¶ 16-17,78-79: the pumps taught are capable for use in the heart chambers and vessels, including the aorta, and as seen in Fig. 26A they can provide unidirectional flow that would displace blood from the heart to the aorta, and from the aorta to the organs);
a second pump capable for aortic circulation, and capable to be used to be installed inside the aorta to supply blood to designated organs (e.g. Fig. 1D, Fig. 26A: pump 110’ or pump 228; abstract, ¶¶ 16-17,78-79: the pumps taught are capable for use in the heart chambers and vessels, including the aorta, and as seen in Fig. 26A they can provide unidirectional flow that would displace blood from the heart to the aorta, and from the aorta to the organs);
a power transmission section connected between the heart circulation pump and the aortic circulation pump to achieve power transmission (e.g. ¶¶ 100, 158, 201, Fig. 1D, Fig. 26A: power wire 117 or power line 236).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 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, and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Neither Delgado III, nor Salahieh teach either of claims 2 or 10, as a whole. Claims 3-9, and 11-13 depend on Claims 2 and 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, 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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights