DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of January 22, 2026 which cancelled original claims 1-15 and added new claims 16-32; and, amended the specification.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract should not contain legal phraseology such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0017] line 1 “o:E” should be “of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0020] line 2 “meanader.i.ng.” should be “meandering”.
Appropriate correction is required.
There are additional and similar terns that seem to randomly include punctuation in at least paragraphs [0069], [0077], [0084] and [0096]. Applicant is encouraged to review the specification for additional instances of unclear terminology.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 “the one or more shaft journals” should be “the first and second shaft journal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “shaper” should be “shape”. 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.
Claims 16-32 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.
Claim 16 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth the rotor comprising at least one impeller blade and separately sets forth a tubular support device that supports the at least one impeller blade. The claims are directed to the embodiments having the brace members and the two journals, such as Figs. 23-29. Fig. 23 is set forth an illustrating a rotor having a tubular support device 15 and impeller blades, here the rotor comprises the tubular support device and the impeller blades. The claims seem to set forth that the rotor and the tubular support device are separate elements with one having the impeller blades and the other supporting the impeller blades. Therefore the claims do not clearly set forth what the structure of the rotor and the tubular support device is.
Claim 17 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth that braces each comprise a fork like structure. The braces are the individual elements, such as 18, 19, 20, 21 in Fig. 26, made of individual rods or prongs and a fork is defined as a structure having multiple prongs. Therefore it is unclear how each brace forms a fork. For the purposes of examination it will be considered that there is a fork assembly at each end of the tubular support device that is formed from the braces at the corresponding end.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102e as being anticipated by Pfeffer et al (USPN 8,439,859).
With regards to claim 16 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump (see Figs. 2 and 6-8) comprising: a rotor (8.1, 13.1, 3.2, 13.2, 4, 8.2), the rotor having a first end (8.1) and a second end (8.2) and comprising at least one impeller blade (3.2) rotatable about an axis of rotation (axis of 4) and configured to convey a liquid (blood, see col. 1 ln 17) in operation; a tubular support device (3.1 and Fig. 8) coupled (see Fig. 6) to first and second shaft journals (12.1, 3.1.1, 8.1 & 12.2, 3.1.5, 8.2) via one or more braces (see 3.1.2 & 3.1.4 in Fig. 2 & 8), wherein the first and second shaft journals are each aligned with the axis of rotation of the rotor (see Fig. 6), wherein the first shaft journal (3.1.1) is positioned at the first end of the rotor (see Figs. 2 & 8) and the second shaft journal (3.1.5) is positioned at the second end of the rotor ; and wherein the tubular support device houses the at least one impeller blade (see Fig. 6) and the at least one impeller blade is supported by the tubular support device (via the braces and the journals).
With regards to claim 17 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the one or more braces form a fork-like structure (at each end of the tubular support device (see 3.1.2 & 3.1.4 in Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 18 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16, wherein the one or more braces each comprise a triangular plate (as shown in Fig. 2 and described at col. 6 lines 54-59 a covering 3.1.8 (labeled 3.18 in Fig. 2) covers the wire mesh and has triangular shaped end surfaces that may broadly be considered as part of the braces.
With regards to claim 19 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16, wherein the one or more braces are configured to transmit torque from the tubular support device into the first and second shaft journals (as shown in Fig. 8 the inner arts of the journals are integral with the tubular support and thus would transmit torque as claimed).
With regards to claim 20 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 19, wherein the rotor (8.1, 13.1, 3.2, 13.2, 4, 8.2) is rotatably journalled (via journal portions 8.1, 8.2) such that it is driven (via 4.1 and the journal at the associated end) by the shaft journals .
With regards to claim 21 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16, wherein the tubular support device comprises a wire meshwork (see Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 22 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 21 wherein the wire meshwork comprises a shape memory alloy (see col. 6 lines 9-14).
With regards to claim 23 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the tubular support device further wherein the tubular support device further comprises a plurality of concentric reinforcement elements (the cover 3.1.8 and the wire mesh are concentric and reinforce one another).
With regards to claim 24 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 23 wherein the wire meshwork comprises a shape memory alloy (see col. 6 lines 9-14).
With regards to claim 25 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the wire meshwork comprises an elastic material (see col. 6 lines 9-14, plastic).
With regards to claim 26 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the at least one impeller blade comprises a helical blade (see Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 27 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the at least one impeller blade further comprises a pipe section at a periphery of the at least one impeller blade, wherein the pipe section (the cover and mesh discussed above) is configured to stabilize (via the forks and the journals) the at least one impeller blade.
With regards to claim 28 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the tubular support device comprises a flexible tube (see col. 6 lines 9-14, the wire meshwork comprises an elastic material plastic and shape memory material making it flexible).
With regards to claim 29 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the tubular support device has a constant diameter (see section 3.1 in Fig. 6).
With regards to claim 30 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the at least one impeller blade is configured to extend radially in a direction from about the axis of rotation to an outer radial edge furthermost from the axis of rotation (see Figs. 2 & 6).
With regards to claim 31 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the at least one impeller blade is radially spaced apart (the radial most tip of the blade 3.2 is spaced from the axis of rotation (4.1) when in an expanded state (it is noted that no collapsed or folded state has been set forth so the configuration of Fig. 2 & 6 is considered an expanded state). With regards to claim 31 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16.
With regards to claim 32 Pfeffer et al discloses a fluid pump as set forth in claim 16 wherein the tubular support device comprises an inner flexible sleeve (3.1.1, 3.1.5) and an outer wire meshwork (3.1.3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Delgado and Schumacher et al disclose impeller pumps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights