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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “comprises” (line 2) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is:
Flow machine in claims 2, 8, 14, 19 (see [0016] of specification)
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,267. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (see below).
Application No. 19/049,690 (Instant Application)
US Patent No. 12,222,267
Claim 2: A cardiac assist system comprising: a flow machine; a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine, the cannula comprising an inlet interface and configured to extend along an axis; an ultrasonic element configured to generate a sound wave in blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along its axis and reflects off the blood; and a detection device configured to determine a viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a functional relationship between the at least one Doppler parameter and the viscosity.
Claim 1: A cardiac assist system comprising: an inlet interface having inlet openings; an outlet interface having outlet openings; a flow machine comprising… a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine from the inlet interface to the outlet interface, the cannula configured to extend along an axis across a patient's aortic valve… and… an ultrasonic element arranged in the tip and configured to generate a sound wave in the blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood, a detection device configured to determine the viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a functional relationship between the Doppler Parameter and the viscosity.
Claim 3: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table.
Claim 2: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table.
Claim 4: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity comprises using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 5: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 5: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 7: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 6: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of a fluid through the cannula.
Claim 8: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of the fluid through the cannula.
Claim 7: wherein the at least one Doppler parameter comprises a Doppler frequency or a width of the Doppler spectrum.
Claim 9: …wherein the Doppler parameter comprises a Doppler frequency or a width of the Doppler spectrum.
Claim 8: A cardiac assist system comprising: a flow machine; a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine, the cannula comprising an inlet interface and configured to extend along an axis; an ultrasonic element configured to generate a sound wave in blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood; and a detection device configured to determine a viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table.
Claim 18: A cardiac assist system comprising: an inlet interface having inlet openings; an outlet interface having outlet openings; a flow machine comprising… a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine from the inlet interface to the outlet interface, the cannula configured to extend along an axis across a patient's aortic valve… and… an ultrasonic element arranged in the tip and configured to generate a sound wave in the blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood, a detection device configured to determine the viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table.
Claim 9: wherein the lookup table comprises values characterizing a relationship between the at least one Doppler parameter and the viscosity.
Claim 19: wherein the lookup table comprises values characterizing a relationship between the Doppler parameter and the viscosity.
Claim 10: wherein the lookup table comprises an interpolation of a first viscosity and a second viscosity and wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using the interpolation of the first viscosity and the second viscosity.
Claim 20: wherein the lookup table comprises an interpolation of a first viscosity and a second viscosity and wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using the interpolation of the first viscosity and the second viscosity.
Claim 11: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 5: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 12: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 7: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 13: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of a fluid through the cannula.
Claim 8: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of the fluid through the cannula.
Claim 14: A cardiac assist system comprising: a flow machine; a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine, the cannula comprising an inlet interface and configured to extend along an axis; an ultrasonic element configured to generate a sound wave in blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood; and a detection device configured to determine a viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using the at least one Doppler parameter and wherein the at least one Doppler parameter comprises a Doppler frequency or a width of the Doppler spectrum.
Claim 22: A cardiac assist system comprising: an inlet interface having inlet openings; an outlet interface having outlet openings; a flow machine comprising…a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine from the inlet interface to the outlet interface, the cannula configured to extend along an axis across a patient's aortic valve… and… an ultrasonic element arranged in the tip and configured to generate a sound wave in the blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood, a detection device configured to determine the viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using the Doppler parameter and wherein the Doppler parameter comprises a Doppler frequency or a width of the Doppler spectrum.
Claim 15: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 5: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 16: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 7: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 17: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of a fluid through the cannula.
Claim 8: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of the fluid through the cannula.
Claim 18: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table.
Claim 2: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table.
Claim 19: A cardiac assist system comprising: a flow machine; a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine, the cannula comprising an inlet interface and configured to extend along an axis; an ultrasonic element configured to generate a sound wave in blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood; and a detection device configured to determine a viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 21: A cardiac assist system comprising: an inlet interface having inlet openings; an outlet interface having outlet openings; a flow machine comprising… a cannula through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine from the inlet interface to the outlet interface, the cannula configured to extend along an axis across a patient's aortic valve… and… an ultrasonic element arranged in the tip and configured to generate a sound wave in the blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along the axis and reflects off the blood, a detection device configured to determine the viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood, wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula.
Claim 20: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 7: wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile.
Claim 21: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of a fluid through the cannula.
Claim 8: wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of the fluid through the cannula.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4-7, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0224279), hereinafter ‘Cahan’, in view of Franano et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0258981), hereinafter ‘Franano’.
Regarding claim 2, Cahan teaches a cardiac assist system (Figs. 3-4) comprising:
a flow machine (fluid flow monitoring system 100, Figs. 3-4, [0032], device where fluid flows)
a cannula (coronary stent 400, Fig. 4) through which a blood flow can be conveyed by the flow machine ([0065], coronary stent is a tubular structure within which blood flows), the cannula comprising an inlet interface and configured to extend along an axis (see Fig. 4);
an ultrasonic element (transmitting piezo-element 601, Fig. 6) configured to generate a sound wave in blood, wherein the sound wave radiates through the inlet interface into the cannula along its axis and reflects off the blood ([0035], emits ultrasonic signal in direction of blood flow); and
a detection device (transmitter/receiver 170, Fig. 4) configured to determine parameters of the blood ([0062], signals used to monitor fluid velocity) using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood ([0017], signals measure a Doppler shift effect), wherein the detection device is configured to determine the blood parameters using a functional relationship between the at least one Doppler parameter and the blood parameters ([0060], analyze dynamics to determine what causes change in velocity of blood, [0064], blood velocity reflects cardiac cycle stages).
Cahan discusses using a patient’s blood viscosity (see [0059]), but does not specifically teach that the device can determine viscosity using a Doppler parameter.
Franano teaches a rotary blood pump (abstract) further comprising:
a detection device configured to determine a viscosity of the blood using at least one Doppler parameter of a Doppler spectrum of the sound wave reflected off the blood ([0227], ultrasonic flow sensor, [0228], indirect calculation of blood viscosity), wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a functional relationship between the at least one Doppler parameter and the viscosity ([0223-0226], Hagen-Poiseuille blood flow equation).
The Examiner notes that the Hagen-Poiseuille blood flow equation, as taught by Franano and widely used in fluid dynamics, shows that blood flow velocity and viscosity are inversely proportional, assuming constant pressure and vessel radius/length. Further, viscosity can be calculated using the equation and the flow velocity determined from the Doppler parameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cahan to incorporate the teachings of Franano to include determining viscosity from a Doppler parameter, i.e. a parameter that approximates flow velocity. This is a direct mathematical relationship based on the Hagen-Poiseuille blood flow equation.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of similarly worded claim 2. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using the at least one Doppler parameter and wherein the at least one Doppler parameter comprises a Doppler frequency or a width of the Doppler spectrum ([0039], examine acoustic transmission spectrum, [0047-0048], obtain observed and emitted frequency).
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of similarly worded claim 2. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula ([0049], diameter and cross-sectional area are known, can then solve for blood flow rate).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Cahan and Franano teach the systems of claims 2 and 14, respectively. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity comprises using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula ([0049], diameter and cross-sectional area are known, can then solve for blood flow rate).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 20, Cahan and Franano teach the systems of claims 2, 14, and 19, respectively. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile ([0062], signals used to monitor fluid velocity, [0060], extrapolate flow rate from detected velocity).
Regarding claims 6, 17, and 21, Cahan and Franano teach the systems of claims 5, 16, and 20, respectively. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of a fluid through the cannula (Fig. 2, block 208, [0054], estimate blood velocity).
Regarding claim 7, Cahan and Franano teach the system of claim 2. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the at least one Doppler parameter comprises a Doppler frequency or a width of the Doppler spectrum ([0039], examine acoustic transmission spectrum, [0047-0048], obtain observed and emitted frequency).
Claims 3, 8-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0224279) in view of Franano et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0258981), further in view of Schmulewitz (US Patent No. 5,782,774), hereinafter ‘Schmulewitz’.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Cahan and Franano teach the system of claims 2 and 14, respectively. Cahan and Franano discuss solving for parameters (see Cahan [0049], Franano [0228]), but do not specifically teach using a lookup table to determine the viscosity.
Schmulewitz teaches an apparatus for monitoring cardiac output (abstract), further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table (col. 10, ll. 44-50, look-up table to estimate flow of blood (Q), col. 10, ll. 10-15, Q and viscosity relationship).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cahan and Franano to incorporate the teachings of Schmulewitz to include a lookup table. Doing so would allow for the estimation of parameters, as recognized by Schmulewitz (col. 10, ll. 44-50).
Regarding claim 8, see rejection of similarly worded claim 2. Cahan and Franano discuss solving for parameters (see Cahan [0049], Franano [0228]), but do not specifically teach using a lookup table to determine the viscosity.
Schmulewitz teaches an apparatus for monitoring cardiac output (abstract), further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using a lookup table (col. 10, ll. 44-50, look-up table to estimate flow of blood (Q), col. 10, ll. 10-15, Q and viscosity relationship).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cahan and Franano to incorporate the teachings of Schmulewitz to include a lookup table. Doing so would allow for the estimation of parameters, as recognized by Schmulewitz (col. 10, ll. 44-50).
Regarding claim 9, Cahan, Franano, and Schmulewitz teach the system of claim 8. Franano teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the lookup table comprises values characterizing a relationship between the at least one Doppler parameter and the viscosity ([0223-0226], Hagen-Poiseuille blood flow equation).
Regarding claim 10, Cahan, Franano, and Schmulewitz teach the system of claim 8. Schmulewitz teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the lookup table comprises an interpolation of a first viscosity and a second viscosity and wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using the interpolation of the first viscosity and the second viscosity (col. 10, ll. 44-50, look-up table to estimate flow of blood (Q)).
Regarding claim 11, Cahan, Franano, and Schmulewitz teach the system of claim 8. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity comprises using at least one cannula parameter (r) of the cannula ([0049], diameter and cross-sectional area are known, can then solve for blood flow rate).
Regarding claim 12, Cahan, Franano, and Schmulewitz teach the system of claim 8. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the detection device is configured to determine the viscosity using at least one flow parameter of a flow profile ([0062], signals used to monitor fluid velocity, [0060], extrapolate flow rate from detected velocity).
Regarding claim 13, Cahan, Franano, and Schmulewitz teach the system of claim 12. Cahan teaches the system further comprising:
wherein the at least one flow parameter comprises a flow velocity (v) of a fluid through the cannula (Fig. 2, block 208, [0054], estimate blood velocity).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Silverstein et al. (US Patent No. 4,582,067) teaches a catheter tube with an ultrasonic probe (abstract).
Casas (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0085505) teaches a blood pump with thin film active electronic devices (abstract). See [0040], [0067].
Viole et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0151761) teaches a blood pump. See [0100].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is (571)272-1594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/E.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights