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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1: Line 8 recites “distal end portion”, it appears this should recite “a distal end portion”.
Regarding claim 7: Line 1 recites “at least one bore or protrusion”. However, “a bore” and “a protrusion” have been introduced in claim 6. It is unclear if these are meant to be the same or different components.
Regarding claim 18: The last line recites “its”, this should specifically recite the limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 16-17, 22-23, 27, 29, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siess et al. (“Siess”; US 2004/0046466).
Regarding claim 1: Siess discloses a blood pump motor (Fig. 2), comprising:
a rotor (16) having a central axis of rotation (center dot of 13 in Fig. 3), the rotor comprising a magnet (19) having a length (length of 10 shown in Fig. 2) extending from a distal end (end at 22) to a proximal end (end at 14); and
a stator (15) disposed around at least a portion of the rotor;
wherein:
the rotor is free of an opening extending from the distal end to the proximal end (shown by the solid cross-section in Fig. 3), and/or
the magnet has distal end portion (left side), a proximal end portion (right side), and a rotationally symmetrical middle portion located between the distal end portion and the proximal end portion (around where the ‘N’ and ‘S’ is labelled in Fig. 2), the rotationally symmetrical middle portion having a circular cross-section (as the magnet is a cylinder with a consistent circularly cross-section).
Regarding claim 2: Siess discloses a housing disposed around the stator (18, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6: Siess discloses the proximal end portion and/or the distal end portion comprises a bore extending into an outer surface, or a protrusion extending away from an outer surface (in this case a bore allowing 13 to enter).
Regarding claim 7: Siess discloses at least one bore or protrusion is configured to extend radially inward or outward from the outer surface (a bore inherently extends inward).
Regarding claim 8: Siess discloses a distal shaft operably coupled to the distal end of the magnet (left side of Fig. 2, with bearing 20 surrounding it), a proximal shaft operably coupled to the proximal end of the magnet (extending out of the magnet into 12), or both.
Regarding claim 9: Siess discloses a distal bore extending partially into a distal end of the magnet (as the shaft is within the distal end), a proximal bore extending partially into a proximal end of the magnet (as the shaft is within the proximal end), or both.
Regarding claim 16: Siess discloses the distal shaft is coupled to a distal shaft cap at a proximal end of the distal shaft, and/or the proximal shaft is coupled to a proximal shaft cap at a distal end of the proximal shaft (in this case the cap surrounding bearing 21 is the cap, see the arrow in annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17: Siess discloses the distal shaft cap and/or proximal shaft cap have an inner surface (17) configured to be coupled to an outer surface of the magnet (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22: Siess discloses the distal shaft and/or proximal shaft is adhered to the magnet (as they are tightly pressed, see cross-section of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23: Siess discloses the distal shaft and/or proximal shaft is mechanically coupled to the magnet (as they rotate together).
Regarding claim 27: Siess discloses the distal shaft is the same length as the proximal shaft (as they are the same).
Regarding claim 29: Siess discloses the magnet comprises an integral distal shaft extending from the distal end of the magnet, an integral proximal shaft operably coupled to the proximal end of the magnet (as 13 extends from the proximal end, which is at the right side of Fig. 2), or both.
Regarding claim 32: Siess discloses a distal bearing (20) disposed distal to the magnet, a proximal bearing (21) disposed proximal to the magnet, or both.
Regarding claim 36: Siess discloses a blood pump (Fig. 2), comprising:
a motor section (left side) having a blood pump motor of claim 1;
a pump housing (14) attached to the motor section and defining an input port (32) and an output port (31); and
an impeller (12) disposed within the pump housing and configured, when rotated, to pump blood from the input port to the output port, the impeller being operably coupled to the blood pump motor (via 13)
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.
Claims 5, 12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siess.
Regarding claim 5: Siess discloses a diameter of the blood pump motor, but does not explicitly disclose the diameter is less than 3.3 mm.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diameter to be less the 3.3 mm in order to allow for specific applications.
Regarding claim 12: Siess discloses the distal shaft extends into the distal bore and the distal bore, the proximal shaft extends into the proximal bore and the proximal bore extends,but does not explicitly disclose the shafts extend less than 3 mm into the magnet.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the extension into the magnet to be less than 3.3 mm in order to allow for proper support for the magnet.
Regarding claim 28: Siess discloses the distal shaft, but does not explicitly disclose the distal shaft is shorter than the proximal shaft.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the shafts to be as claimed in order to save materials by reducing the size of the distal shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, and 18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the blood pump motor of claim 10, specifically comprising:
the distal bore extends through the distal end portion and the rotationally symmetrical middle portion is free of the distal bore, the proximal bore extends through the proximal end portion and the rotationally symmetrical middle portion is free of the proximal bore, or both, in the context of the other components in the claim.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the blood pump motor of claim 11, specifically comprising:
wherein the distal bore forms a chamfered surface at the distal end of the magnet, the proximal bore forms a chamfered surface at the proximal end of the magnet, or both, in the context of the other components in the claim.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the blood pump motor of claim 18, specifically comprising:
discloses at least a portion of the inner surface of the distal shaft cap and/or proximal shaft cap has a non-circular cross-section when viewed along its central axis, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights