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, 4, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 5-6, “an axis of rotation- for conveying…” should read “an axis of rotation for conveying…”
In claim 1, lines 21-22, “the first end- of the rotor…” should read “the first end of the rotor…”
In claim 4, lines 4-5, “the blading- adjacent…” should read “the blading adjacent…”
In claim 9, lines 3-4, “around the axis of rotation the region essentially having…” should read “around the axis of rotation, wherein the region essentially has…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is 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.
The term “essentially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is 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 reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0144413).
Regarding claim 1, Foster teaches a rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) for a fluid pump (Fig. 1-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 3-4, 101) for cardiac support (Paragraph 0003, lines 3-6 and Paragraph 0044, lines 1-3), comprising: a rotor magnet arrangement (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0054, lines 4-5, 120) for contactlessly supporting the rotor (Fig. 4) within a cavity (See Annotated Fig. 4) of the fluid pump such that the rotor is rotatable (Paragraph 0056, lines 2-3) about an axis of rotation- (See Annotated Fig. 4) for conveying a fluid (Fig. 1-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 1-6, “blood”) from an inlet (Fig. 1-4, Paragraph 0044, line 4, 102) of the cavity to an outlet (Fig. 1-3, Paragraph 0044, line 4, 103) of the cavity and a first end (See Annotated Fig. 4) of the rotor is arranged closer to the inlet (102) than a second end (See Annotated Fig. 4) of the rotor opposite the first end along the axis of rotation; a hub structure (Paragraph 0054, line 3, “tubular member”) arranged at the first end of the rotor and centered about the axis of rotation (See Annotated Fig. 6), the hub structure comprising one or more magnets (120) of the rotor magnet arrangement (See Annotated Fig. 4 and 6); a base plate (Fig. 4-6, Paragraph 0049, lines 6-7, 118) arranged at the second end of the rotor (See Annotated Fig. 6) or between the hub structure and the second end of the rotor and having a blading (Fig. 3 and 5-6, Paragraph 0049, line 1, 116) for conveying the fluid, wherein intermediate spaces of the blading form fluid channels which open into respective outlet openings and are delimited towards the second end of the rotor by the base plate (See Annotated Fig. 6); wherein at least one of the fluid channels has a passage opening (See Annotated Fig. 6) connecting the fluid channel to the cavity (Fig. 1-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 3-6, 104), the passage opening extending between the outlet opening and the hub structure along at least part of a first side of the fluid channel (See Annotated Fig. 6), the first side facing the first end- of the rotor (See Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 (Foster)
PNG
media_image2.png
395
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 (Foster)
Regarding claim 2, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) of claim 1, wherein the passage opening of at least one of the fluid passages extends along at least part of an extension of the fluid passage from the outlet opening towards the hub structure (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
Regarding claim 3, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) of claim 2, wherein the passage opening of at least one of the fluid passages extends along the entire extension of the fluid passage from the outlet opening to the hub structure (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
Regarding claim 4, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the fluid passages is partially delimited on the first side at the level of the passage opening (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above) by a projection (Fig. 4-6, Paragraph 0049, lines 4-5, 117) of a surface of the blading- adjacent to the respective fluid passage (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
Regarding claim 8, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) of claim 1, wherein the hub structure comprises an inlet channel extending along the axis of rotation and open at the first end and fluidly connected within the rotor to the fluid channels (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
Regarding claim 10, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) of claim 1, wherein a transition from the blading to the hub structure is rounded (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
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.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0144413) in view of Ayre et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 00/64509).
Regarding claim 5, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 4. Foster does not teach that the projection projects from the surface of the blading adjacent to the respective fluid channel against a direction of rotation of the rotor and/or the surface has a concave curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Ayre, however, teaches a rotary blood pump that includes an impeller (Fig. 21-24, Page 38, line 19, 410) that comprises blades (Fig. 21-22 and 24, Page 38, line 23, 413). Ayre also teaches that the blades comprise projections of a surface (See Annotated Fig. 24) of the blading adjacent to a respective fluid passage (Fig. 24, Page 39, line 15, 416). Ayre teaches that the surface of the projections has a concave curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation (See Annotated Fig. 24).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 24 (Ayre)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Ayre to include that the projection surfaces have a concave curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Doing so would ensure that the blood is able to flow smoothly through the fluid channels to allow fluid communication between the inlet and outlet of the impeller (Page 39, lines 13-17), as recognized by Ayre.
Regarding claim 6, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 4. Foster does not teach that the projection projects from the surface of the blading adjacent to the respective fluid channel in a direction of rotation of the rotor and/or the surface has a convex curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Ayre, however, teaches a rotary blood pump that includes an impeller (Fig. 21-24, Page 38, line 19, 410) that comprises blades (Fig. 21-22 and 24, Page 38, line 23, 413). Ayre also teaches that the blades comprise projections of a surface (See Annotated Fig. 24 Above) of the blading adjacent to a respective fluid passage (Fig. 24, Page 39, line 15, 416). Ayre teaches that the surface of the projections has a concave curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation (See Annotated Fig. 24 Above).
Regarding the convex shape of the projection of the surface of the blade, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B. Also see Paragraph 0040 of Applicant’s Specification.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Ayre to include that the projection surfaces have a concave curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Doing so would ensure that the blood is able to flow smoothly through the fluid channels to allow fluid communication between the inlet and outlet of the impeller (Page 39, lines 13-17), as recognized by Ayre.
Regarding claim 7, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 4. Foster does not teach that the projection is formed as a continuous extension of a shape of a respective blade of the blading, wherein the blade and/or the projection is at least partially curved in a tangential plane parallel to the axis of rotation.
Ayre, however, teaches a rotary blood pump that includes an impeller (Fig. 21-24, Page 38, line 19, 410) that comprises blades (Fig. 21-22 and 24, Page 38, line 23, 413). Ayre also teaches that the blades comprise projections of a surface (See Annotated Fig. 24 Above) of the blading adjacent to a respective fluid passage (Fig. 24, Page 39, line 15, 416). Ayre teaches that the surface of the projections has a concave curvature in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation (See Annotated Fig. 24 Above).
Furthermore, Ayre teaches that the projection is formed as a continuous extension of a shape of a respective blade of the blading (See Annotated Fig. 24 Above), wherein the blade is at least partially curved in a tangential plane parallel to the axis of rotation (See Annotated Fig. 24 Above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Ayre to include that the projection is formed as a continuous extension of a shape of a respective blade of the blading, wherein the blade is at least partially curved in a tangential plane parallel to the axis of rotation. Doing so would ensure that the blood is able to flow smoothly through the fluid channels to allow fluid communication between the inlet and outlet of the impeller (Page 39, lines 13-17), as recognized by Ayre.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0144413) in view of Chen et al. (CN 106574628).
Regarding claim 9, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 8 that includes the base plate (Fig. 4-6, Paragraph 0049, lines 6-7, 118). Foster does not teach that the base plate comprises a region extending fully around the axis of rotation, the region essentially having a cylindrical shape.
Chen, however, teaches a centrifugal blood pump (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0028, lines 1-2, 100) that includes a rotor (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0029, line 1, 106) and an impeller (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0031, line 1, 116). Chen further teaches that the impeller comprises a base plate (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0031, line 2, 202) with a plurality of blades disposed on it (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0031, line 3, 204). Chen also teaches that the base plate comprises a region extending fully around the axis of rotation (Fig. 2), and that the region essentially has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Chen to include that the base plate comprises a region extending fully around the axis of rotation, and that the region essentially has a cylindrical shape. Doing so would allow the rotor to produce greater torque and more power than a conventional centrifugal pump (Paragraph 0035, lines 1-5), as recognized by Chen.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0144413).
Regarding claim 11, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 1, wherein a component (See Annotated Fig. 6 Below) of the rotor comprising the blading (Fig. 3 and 5-6, Paragraph 0049, line 1, 116) is integrally formed (Fig. 5-6).
PNG
media_image4.png
347
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 (Foster)
Foster does not explicitly teach that the component comprising the blading is integrally formed by milling from a continuous piece of material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mill a continuous piece of material to integrally form a component of the rotor, as milling is a materials processing technique that is well known in the art which is used to maximize efficiency and minimize material waste.
Regarding claim 12, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 11, wherein the integrally formed component comprising the blading comprises at least a part of the base plate (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above) and/or at least a part of the hub structure (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
Regarding claim 13, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 1, wherein the rotor is composed or composable of a first component comprising at least a part of the hub structure and at least one second component (See Annotated Fig. 6 Above).
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0144413) in view of Yamane (U.S. Patent No. 6,015,434).
Regarding claim 14, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 1 that includes the base plate (Fig. 4-6, Paragraph 0049, lines 6-7, 118) and the one or more magnets of the rotor magnet arrangement (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0054, lines 4-5, 120). Foster does not teach that the base plate comprises one or more magnets of the rotor magnet arrangement.
Yamane, however, teaches an artificial heart pump (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 1) that includes a stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 2) and a rotor (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 2, 3), wherein the rotor is received in a cavity of the stator (Fig. 1-2). Yamane also teaches that the rotor comprises a base plate (See Annotated Fig. 1B, Col. 3, lines 41-42, “bottom surface”) with one or more magnets (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, line 41, 31).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1B (Yamane)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Yamane to include that the base plate comprises one or more magnets of the rotor magnet arrangement. Doing so would support the rotor within the cavity of the stator and allow rotation of the rotor inside the stator (Col. 3, lines 45-49), as recognized by Yamane.
Regarding claim 15, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2,
119) of claim 14 that includes the base plate (Fig. 4-6, Paragraph 0049, lines 6-7, 118) and the one or more magnets of the rotor magnet arrangement (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0054, lines 4-5, 120). Foster teaches that the stator includes coils (Fig. 3-4, Paragraph 0054, line 7, 122), which it is known in the art that coils can be magnetic.
Foster does not teach that one or more of the one or more magnets of the rotor magnet arrangement comprised by the base plate is adapted to cooperate with a stator magnetic bearing arrangement of the fluid pump for exerting a force along the axis of rotation on the rotor for contactlessly supporting the rotor within the cavity.
Yamane, however, teaches an artificial heart pump (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 1) that includes a stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 2) and a rotor (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 2, 3), wherein the rotor is received in a cavity of the stator (Fig. 1-2). Yamane also teaches that the stator has a magnetic bearing arrangement (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, lines 49-51, 32), and the rotor has a magnet arrangement (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, line 41, 31). Yamane teaches that the stator magnetic bearing arrangement (32) and the rotor magnet arrangement (31) form a magnetic coupler (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, lines 39-53, 6) that exerts a force along the axis of rotation on the rotor (See Further Annotated Fig. 1B Below) for contactlessly supporting the rotor in the cavity of the stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 4, lines 2-5).
PNG
media_image6.png
405
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Further Annotated Fig. 1B (Yamane)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Yamane to include that one or more of the one or more magnets of the rotor magnet arrangement comprised by the base plate is adapted to cooperate with a stator magnetic bearing arrangement of the fluid pump for exerting a force along the axis of rotation on the rotor for contactlessly supporting the rotor within the cavity. Doing so would support the rotor within the cavity of the stator and allow rotation of the rotor by using an electric current generated by the stator magnetic bearing arrangement (Col. 3, lines 45-49), as recognized by Yamane.
Regarding claim 17, Foster teaches a fluid pump (Fig. 1-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 3-4, 101) for cardiac support (Paragraph 0003, lines 3-6 and Paragraph 0044, lines 1-3), comprising: a rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119) of claim 1, a stator (Fig. 3-4, Paragraph 0054, line 5, 121) with a cavity for receiving the rotor (See Annotated Fig. 4 Above), and a radial hydrodynamic bearing (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0055, line 3, 126) formed between the rotor and stator to contactlessly support the rotor within the cavity (Fig. 4).
Foster teaches that the rotor includes a magnetic arrangement (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0054, lines 4-5, 120) and the stator includes coils (Fig. 3-4, Paragraph 0054, line 7, 122), which it is known in the art that coils can be magnetic. Foster does not teach that the stator has a stator magnetic bearing arrangement which, together with the rotor magnet arrangement, forms an active magnetic bearing for contactlessly supporting the rotor within the cavity.
Yamane, however, teaches an artificial heart pump (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 1) that includes a stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 2) and a rotor (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 2, 3), wherein the rotor is received in a cavity of the stator (Fig. 1-2). Yamane also teaches that the stator has a magnetic bearing arrangement (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, lines 49-51, 32), and the rotor has a magnet arrangement (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, line 41, 31). Yamane teaches that the stator magnetic bearing arrangement (32) and the rotor magnet arrangement (31) form an active magnetic bearing (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, lines 39-53) for contactlessly supporting the rotor in the cavity of the stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 4, lines 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Yamane to include that the stator has a stator magnetic bearing arrangement which, together with the rotor magnet arrangement, forms an active magnetic bearing for contactlessly supporting the rotor within the cavity. Doing so would support the rotor within the cavity of the stator and allow rotation of the rotor by using an electric current generated by the stator magnetic bearing arrangement (Col. 3, lines 45-49), as recognized by Yamane.
Regarding claim 18, Foster teaches the fluid pump (Fig. 1-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 3-4, 101) according to claim 17. Foster does not teach that the fluid pump is a centrifugal pump. Yamane, however, teaches an artificial heart pump (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 1) that includes a stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 2) and a rotor (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 2, 3). Yamane teaches that the heart pump is a centrifugal pump (Col. 1, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Yamane to specify that the fluid pump is a centrifugal pump. Doing so would allow the blood to be centrifuged before being sent out from the blood outlet (Col. 4, lines 15-20) in order to improve blood flow, as recognized by Yamane.
Regarding claim 19, Foster teaches the fluid pump (Fig. 1-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 3-4, 101) according to claim 17. Foster does not teach that the stator and the rotor form an axial flux motor. Yamane, however, teaches an artificial heart pump (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 1) that includes a stator (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 1, 2) and a rotor (Fig. 1-2, Col. 3, line 2, 3). Furthermore, Yamane teaches that the stator and rotor form an axial flux (See Further Annotated Fig. 1B Above) motor (Fig. 1B, Col. 3, lines 49-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Yamane to include that the stator and rotor form an axial flux motor. Doing so would ensure that the natural frequency of the rotor can be kept high, and the rotation of the rotor can be kept stable to allow for smooth blood flow (Col. 4, lines 37-47), as recognized by Yamane.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0144413) in view of Gundlach et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0316243).
Regarding claim 16, Foster teaches the rotor (Fig. 3-6, Paragraph 0054, line 2, 119), wherein the base plate (Fig. 4-6, Paragraph 0049, lines 6-7, 118) comprises a central recess (Fig. 5-6). Foster also teaches that the fluid pump comprises a stator (Fig. 3-4, Paragraph 0054, line 5, 121). Foster does not teach that the base plate comprises a central recess for contactlessly receiving a part of a stator of the fluid pump, in particular a trunnion comprising a magnetic bearing component.
Gundlach, however, teaches a blood pump (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0041, lines 1-2, 1) that includes a rotor (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0044, line 2, 4) and a stator (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0044, lines 1-2, 2). Gundlach teaches that the blood pump includes a trunnion (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0050, lines 2-3, 8) that comprises a magnetic bearing component (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0050, lines 1-4, 5a). Gundlach also teaches that the rotor comprises a recessed portion (See Annotated Fig. 2) for contactlessly receiving the trunnion (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0050, lines 7-9).
PNG
media_image7.png
356
435
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Gundlach)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster to incorporate the teachings of Gundlach to include that the base plate comprises a central recess for contactlessly receiving a part of a stator of the fluid pump, in particular a trunnion comprising a magnetic bearing component. Doing so would ensure that the rotor remains in the same relative axial position along with the stator (Paragraph 0010, lines 1-6), as recognized by Gundlach.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Timms (U.S. Patent No. 11,154,703) teaches a heart pump including a housing forming a cavity, an impeller within the cavity, and the impeller includes vanes for urging fluid from an inlet to an outlet (Abstract).
Hu et al. (CN 110559496) teaches a central magnetic pole structure of a centrifugal blood pump that comprises an impeller and a pump shell (Abstract), wherein the impeller includes blades on a cylindrical base plate (Figure 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
