FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Samways’ turbine blades are not located on a “bottom side” of the rotor means, but rather are part of a tubular axle connected to the spindle (page 3, Remarks). This argument is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “bottom side comprising a plurality of turbine vanes” encompasses any arrangement in which turbine vanes are situated in the lower region of the rotor-turbine fan, which is fully met by the turbine blades 174 of Samways positioned at the bottom of the rotor means 130, Fig. 1. Furthermore, the tubular axle 144 “form the main structural element of the rotor means” (para. [0051], Samways) so it is part of the rotor means, and the turbine vanes 174 may be formed integrally with the tubular axle 144 (para. [0053], Samways) so they are part of the rotor means as well.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Samways and Gutierrez would “change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified” (Samways) and “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in …(the Samways primary reference)…as well as a change in the basic principle under which…(Samways, the primary reference) construction was designed to operate” (page 5, Remarks). This argument is not persuasive. Paragraph [0098] of Samways states:
“[0098] All of the embodiments described above have employed drive means in the form of impulse or reaction turbines which are powered by the contaminated liquid either separately from or as a precursor to it undergoing contaminant separation, this being one of the most convenient power sources available to such arrangement within a functioning internal combustion engine. It will be appreciated that there are numerous other forms or turbines or non-turbine motors driven by liquid or gaseous fluids that could be adapted for an arrangement in accordance with the present invention. Also, insofar as the arrangement is capable of being designed to effect centrifugal cleaning of contaminated liquid separately from driving the rotor means, the drive means does not need to be powered by the contaminated liquid, nor indeed liquid or any other fluid at all. For example, the rotor means could be driven by electric motor means or mechanical linkage to an engine whose lubricant is being cleaned and achieve high rotation speeds by way of gearing.”
Samways expressly teaches “numerous other forms of turbines or non-turbine motors driven by liquid or gaseous fluids that could be adapted for an arrangement in accordance with the present invention”, and therefore the centrifuge of Samways is not designed to be exclusively driven by a contaminated liquid, but rather teaches that gaseous fluid can be used to drive the turbine. Accordingly, the combination of Samways and Gutierrez does exactly what Samways itself suggests, substituting a gaseous fluid, in this case, a pressurized gas, for the contaminated liquid.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that Miller is a hand-powered centrifuge derived from a salad spinner and lacks turbine vanes and a nozzle, and that modifying it to include these elements would overturn its principle of operation (page 6, Remarks). This argument is not persuasive. The examiner is not proposing to modify Miller into an air-driven centrifuge. Russel and Koreis teaches the method of 3D printing from digital models in a plastic material. Miller was relied upon solely to teach that 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique for making centrifuge components. The specific list of components (topside with sample holders, bottomside with turbine vanes, spindle, base, nozzle) describes what is being printed, not an inventive step of the printing method itself.
A method claim is not patentable merely because the prior art does not teach the method being applied to an identical article, where the method steps themselves are fully taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Kanter, 399 F.2d 249, 158 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1968) (Process of siliconizing a patentable base material to obtain a patentable product was claimed. Rejection based on prior art teaching the siliconizing process as applied to a different base material was upheld.); In re Durden, 763 F.2d 1406, 226 USPQ 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (The examiner rejected a claim directed to a process in which patentable starting materials were reacted to form patentable end products. The prior art showed the same chemical reaction mechanism applied to other chemicals. The court held that the process claim was obvious over the prior art.); In re Albertson, 332 F.2d 379, 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964) (Process of chemically reducing one novel, nonobvious material to obtain another novel, nonobvious material was claimed. The process was held obvious because the reduction reaction was old.). See MPEP 2116.01.
The specific list of components in claim 16(i)-(v) does not add patentable weight to the method claim because selecting which specific components of a known centrifuge design to 3D print is a matter of design choice that requires no more than ordinary skill in the art and produces predictable results. As stated in MPEP 2143, the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness, including the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and the application of a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, 3D printing is a known technique applied to centrifuge components (known device) to yield the predictable result of 3D printed centrifuge parts. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. Or the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See MPEP 2143.01.
Furthermore, the specific centrifuge components recited in claim 16 (i) – (v) are known in the art and taught by the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels as applied to claims 1-15. Because the components themselves are rendered obvious by that combination, and because the method steps of making said components are rendered obvious by Russel, Koreis, and Miller, the method of claim 16 as a whole is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 January 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1, 2, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samways (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0152578) in view of Gutierrez et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,345,713, hereinafter Gutierrez), and further in view of WO 2009/123447 (Hessels).
Regarding claim 1, Samways discloses a centrifuge powered by pressurized fluid comprising: a rotor-turbine fan (rotor means 130, Fig. 1) having a topside (a walled containment separation and containment vessel 132, Fig. 1) and a bottomside, and the bottom side comprising a plurality of turbine vanes (turbine blades 174, Fig. 1); and a spindle (122, Fig. 1) on which the rotor-turbine fan is rotatably mounted, the spindle attached to a base (114, Fig. 1) that comprises a nozzle (176, Fig. 1), the nozzle having an outlet proximate the turbine vanes (see Fig. 1), wherein the topside and the bottom side are each formed as separate pieces joined together to form the rotor-turbine fan (the rotor means is mounted with respect to the spindle 122 by way of a tubular axle 144, para. [0048]; and the blades 174 are secured to an end region of the axle 144 or formed integrally therewith, para. [0053], Fig. 1), but does not disclose a microcentrifuge with the topside comprising a plurality of holders and the nozzle is configured to impinge a pressurized gas against the turbine vanes.
Gutierrez discloses analogous art related to an air driven centrifuge, wherein the nozzle (air jets 14, Figure) is configured to impinge a pressurized gas against the turbine vanes (turbine flutes 12, Figure, col. 1 lines 61-68). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted pressurized gas taught by Gutierrez for the pressurized liquid of Samways as the working fluid for driving the turbine, since both gas and liquid jet turbine drives were known alternatives for imparting rotational motion to centrifuge rotors, and such substitution would have yielded predictable results in the form of rotor rotation. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Samways and Gutierrez does not disclose the topside comprises a plurality of holders. Hessels discloses analogous art related to a microcentrifuge (Abstract), the topside (rotor 1, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of holders (tube holder 2, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of Samways and Gutierrez with the microcentrifuge sample holders taught by Hessels for the purpose of separating plasma/serum from blood cells using a small, efficient, inexpensive and/or lightweight microcentrifuge (page 7 lines 11-29, Hessels).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the plurality of holders (tube holder 2, Fig. 1, Hessels) is configured to receive centrifuge tubes (3, Fig. 1, Hessels), each of the centrifugal tubes having an open end (upper edge 10, Fig. 2, Hessels) and a closed end, and configured to extend the closed end of each of the centrifugal tubes outwardly from the rotational axis of the rotor-turbine fan, with the open end of each of the centrifugal tubes facing inwards the rotational axis of the rotor-turbine fan (Fig. 2, Hessels).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses a pressurized gas source (source of pressurized air in Fig. 1, Gutierrez) in fluid communication with the nozzle.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses a housing (112, Fig. 1, Samways) enclosing at least the rotor-turbine fan.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the rotor-turbine fan (vessel 132, Fig. 1, Samways) is comprised of a plastic (para. [0052], Samways).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the height of the microcentrifuge is about 10cm or less, and the diameter of the rotor-turbine fan is about 15cm or less (“15 x 15 x 3cm (l x w x h)”, page 15 lines 17-23, Hessels).
Regarding claim 10, Samways discloses a method of separation comprising: (a) providing a centrifuge comprising: (i) a rotor-turbine fan (rotor means 130, Fig. 1) having a top side (a walled containment separation and containment vessel 132, Fig. 1) and a bottom side, the bottom side comprising a plurality of turbine vanes (turbine blades 174, Fig. 1); and a spindle (122, Fig. 1) on which the rotor-turbine fan is rotatably mounted, the spindle attached to a base (114, Fig. 1) that comprises a nozzle (176, Fig. 1), the nozzle having an outlet proximate ethe turbine vanes (see Fig. 1); wherein the topside and the bottom side are each formed as separate pieces joined together to from the rotor-turbine fan (the rotor means is mounted with respect to the spindle 122 by way of a tubular axle 144, para. [0048]; and the blades 174 are secured to an end region of the axle 144 or formed integrally therewith, para. [0053], Fig. 1), but does not disclose the topside comprising a holder having a sample container containing a sample, the sample comprising a first component and a second component, the first component having a density different from the density of the second component; and passing a pressurized gas through the nozzle to exit the outlet and impinge against the turbine vanes to rotate the rotor-turbine fan thereby separating, in the sample container, the first component from the second component.
Gutierrez discloses analogous art related to an air driven centrifuge, and passing a pressurized gas through the nozzle (air jets 14, Figure) to exit the outlet and impinge against the turbine vanes (turbine flutes 12, Figure, col. 1 lines 61-68) to rotate the rotor-turbine fan. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted pressurized gas taught by Gutierrez for the pressurized liquid of Samways as the working fluid for driving the turbine, since both gas and liquid jet turbine drives were known alternatives for imparting rotational motion to centrifuge rotors, and such substitution would have yielded predictable results in the form of rotor rotation. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Samways and Gutierrez does not disclose the topside comprises the topside comprising a holder having a sample container containing a sample, the sample comprising a first component and a second component, the first component having a density different from the density of the second component, and separating, in the sample container, the first component from the second component. Hessels discloses analogous art related to a microcentrifuge (Abstract), the topside (rotor 1, Fig. 1) comprising a holder (tube holder 2, Fig. 1) having a sample container (centrifuge tube 3, Fig. 1) containing a sample, the sample comprising a first component and a second component, the first component having a density different from the density of the second component, separating, in the sample container, the first component from the second component (page 2 lines 11-15; page 7 lines 11-29; blood sample is separated into plasma/serum and blood cells). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Hein with the type of sample taught by WO 2009123447 for the purpose of separating plasma/serum from blood cells using a small, efficient, inexpensive and/or lightweight microcentrifuge (page 7 lines 11-29, Hessels).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the sample is a chemical or biological sample (blood, Abstract, Hessels).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the first component and the second component are both liquids, or the first component is a solid (blood cells, Abstract, Hessels) and the second component is a liquid (plasma/serum, Abstract, Hessels).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the sample is blood and the first component comprises corpuscular material and the second component comprises serum (page 2 lines 4-6, Hessels).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the sample container is a centrifugal tube (3, Fig. 1, Hessels).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samways in view of Gutierrez, and further in view of Hessels, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of South (U.S. Patent No. 7,182,724).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, Hessels does not disclose wherein the separate pieces are joined by glue, solvent welding, snap fit, pressure fit or combinations thereof.
South discloses analogous are related to a centrifuge rotor, wherein the separate pieces are joined by glue, solvent welding, snap fit, pressure fit or combinations thereof (e.g., “interference fit”, “adhesive”, etc., col. 4 line 63 – col. 5 line 24). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the microcentrifuge of the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, Hessels with the types of joining techniques taught by South for the purpose of achieving a sufficient seal to prevent fluid leakage (col. 4 line 63 – col. 5 line 24, South).
Claims 5, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samways in view of Gutierrez, and further in view of Hessels, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hemfort et al. (U.S Patent No. 2,916,201, hereinafter Hemfort).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels does not disclose wherein the spindle comprises a radial ball bearing.
Hemfort discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge drive spindle arrangement, wherein the spindle comprises a radial ball bearing (col. 1 lines 17-26). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the microcentrifuge of the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels with the radial ball bearing taught by Hemfort for the purpose of withstanding the lateral or radial stresses during the operation of the centrifuge (col. 1 lines 17-26, Hemfort).
Regarding claims 21, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels discloses wherein the bottomside (turbine blades 174, Fig. 1, Samways) comprises a depression (see annotated partial Fig. 1 below, Samways), but does not disclose into which a radial ball bearing is fitted.
Hemfort discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge drive spindle arrangement, wherein the spindle comprises a radial ball bearing (col. 1 lines 17-26). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the microcentrifuge of the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels with the radial ball bearing taught by Hemfort for the purpose of withstanding the lateral or radial stresses during the operation of the centrifuge (col. 1 lines 17-26, Hemfort). Furthermore, the substitution of the needle roller bearing (146, Fig. 1) of Samways for the radial ball bearings of Hemfort is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another or the application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, Hessels, and Hemfort discloses wherein the spindle (122, Fig. 1, Samways) is rotatably mounted to the rotor-turbine fan (rotor means 130, Fig. 1, Samways) by being fitted into the radial ball bearing (col. 1 lines 17-26, Hemfort).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samways in view of Gutierrez, and further in view of Hessels, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (Non-Patent Literature Document #1 in IDS filed on 8 December 2020, hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels does not specify wherein the centrifugal tube is about 1.5 to about 2 ml in size. However, the claimed tube sizes are well known centrifugal tube sizes commonly used for laboratory centrifuges, as evidenced by Miller (page 3 paragraph 3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of the combination of Samways, Gutierrez, and Hessels with the tubes in the sizes disclosed in Miller for the purpose of processing samples in laboratory centrifuges (page 2 paragraph 1, Miller).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0280185, hereinafter Russell) in view of Koreis (U.S. Patent No. 9,579,850), and further in view of Miller et al. (Non-Patent Literature Document #1 in IDS filed on 8 December 2020, hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 16, Russell discloses a method of making components comprising: (a) obtaining three-dimensional (3D) model information data for the components (“a representation of the objection stored in memory”, Abstract); (b) providing the 3D model information to a 3D printer (11, Fig. 1); and (c) 3D printing the components (Abstract), but does not disclose a microcentrifuge with (i) a topside of a rotor-turbine fan the topside having a plurality of sample holders, (ii) a bottom side of the rotor turbine fan, the bottom side having a plurality of turbine vanes, (iii.) a spindle, (iv) a base, and (v) a nozzle, the nozzle having an outlet; and 3D printing, in a plastic, the topside and the bottom side of the rotor turbine fan, the spindle, the base, and the nozzle, wherein the topside and the bottom side are 3D printed as a unitary body or as separate pieces, and wherein the base and the nozzle are 3D printed as a unitary body or as a separate pieces.
Koreis discloses analogous art related to making components using 3D printing, in a plastic (“polymer”, col. 1 lines 30-37). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Russell with the plastic material as taught by Koreis to be used for 3D printing for the purpose of on-demand manufacture of desired parts (col. 1 lines 30-37, Koreis).
The combination of Russel and Koreis does not specifically disclose 3D printing the components of the microcentrifuge.
Miller discloses analogous art related to a 3D printed centrifuge where the centrifuge components are modular and 3D printed (page 3 paragraphs 2-4). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the 3D printing methods of Russel and Koreis to fabricate the components of a centrifuge as taught by Miller for the purpose of achieving the versatility and transportability of 3D printed centrifuge designs (page 3 paragraphs 2-4, Miller). The specific list of components (topside with sample holders, bottomside with turbine vanes, spindle, base, nozzle) describes what is being printed, not an inventive step of the printing method itself.
The specific list of components in claim 16(i)-(v) does not add patentable weight to the method claim because selecting which specific components of a known centrifuge design to 3D print is a matter of design choice that requires no more than ordinary skill in the art and produces predictable results. As stated in MPEP 2143, the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness, including the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and the application of a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, 3D printing is a known technique applied to centrifuge components (known device) to yield the predictable result of 3D printed centrifuge parts. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. Or the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See MPEP 2143.01. Furthermore, printing components as either unitary or separate pieces is an inherent consequence of 3D printing. This is also a design choice with no patentable weight. It requires no more than ordinary skill in the art of 3D printing to print multiple components as a single unified structure versus as separate pieces.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Koreis, and further in view of Miller, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Albert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0297149, hereinafter Albert).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller does not disclose wherein step (a) the 3D model information is obtained by: (1) 3D scanning of a pre-existing model of one or more of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v), or (2) computer-aided design (CAD) of one or more of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v).
Albert discloses 3D scanning of physical object into a 3D printer file (para. [0007]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller with the 3D scanning technique taught by Albert for the purpose of interfacing a 3D printer with a portable image capture device and a movable scanning platform to scan an object (para. [0005], Albert), in this case, the microcentrifuge components listed in claim 16.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Koreis, and further in view of Miller, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Stump (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0277664).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller does not disclose (d) making molds of the 3D printed topside and bottom side of the rotor-turbine fan, the 3D printed spindle, and the 3D printed base, and the 3D printed nozzle; and (e) making in a plastic, from the molds, a second topside and second bottom side of a second rotor-turbine fan, a second spindle, a second base component, and a second nozzle.
Stump discloses making molds of the 3D object (injection molds can be fabricated using a 3D printer based on the altered inverse CAD file, Abstract); and (e) making in a plastic (para. [0058]), from the molds, a second object (3D molded objection 110, Fig. 1, para. [0034]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller with the steps taught by Stump for the purpose of printing 3D molding structures to rapidly create 3D objects (para. [0002], Stump), in this case, the microcentrifuge components listed in claim 16.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Koreis, and further in view of Miller, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Richter (Non-patent Literature Document #3 in IDS filed on 8 December 2020).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller does not disclose (d) making molds of the 3D printed topside and bottom side of the rotor fan, the 3D printed spindle, and the 3D printed base, and the 3D printed nozzle; and (e) making in a plastic, from the molds, a second topside and second bottom side of a second rotor-turbine fan, a second spindle, a second base component, and a second nozzle.
Richter discloses making molds from components made through a 3D print (page 2 paragraph 1); and making in plastic, from the molds, a second set of the components (page 10 paragraphs 3-4; second components are made of resin by using the two-part silicone mold). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the method steps of making molds from a 3D print and using the molds to produce a second set of components as taught by Richter into the method of the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller for the purpose of quickly and easily replicating components, in this case, the microcentrifuge components listed in claim 16.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Koreis, and further in view of Miller, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hemfort (U.S. Patent No. 2,916,201).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller discloses assembling the 3D printed topside and bottom side of the rotor-turbine fan of Claim 16, the 3D printed spindle, the 3D printed base, and the 3D printed nozzle of Claim 16 to form a microcentrifuge having the nozzle outlet proximate the turbine vanes (centrifuge parts can be made by 3D printing and such parts are assembled into a complete centrifuge apparatus, Miller), but does not disclose providing bearings to the 3D printed spindle of Claim 16; and.
Hemfort discloses providing bearings to a centrifuge spindle (col. 1 lines 17-26). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the 3D printed spindle in the method of the combination of Russel, Koreis, and Miller with the bearings taught by Hemfort because supporting a spindle with ball bearings to permit rotation is a well-known practice in the centrifuge art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Koreis, further in view of Miller, and further in view of Stump, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hemfort (U.S. Patent No. 2,916,201).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Russel, Koreis, Miller, and Stump discloses assembling the second topside and the second bottom side of the second rotor-turbine fan of Claim 18, the second spindle, the second base, and the second nozzle of Claim 18 to form a microcentrifuge having the nozzle outlet proximate the turbine vanes (centrifuge parts can be made by 3D printing and such parts are assembled into a complete centrifuge apparatus, Miller), but does not disclose providing bearings to the second spindle of Claim 18.
Hemfort discloses providing bearings to a centrifuge spindle (col. 1 lines 17-26). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second spindle in the method of the combination of Russel, Koreis, Fitzpatrick and Stump with the bearings taught by Hemfort because supporting a spindle with ball bearings to permit rotation is a well-known practice in the centrifuge art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Koreis, further in view of Miller, and further in view of Richter, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hemfort (U.S. Patent No. 2,916,201).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Russel, Koreis, Miller, and Richter discloses assembling the second topside and the second bottom side of the second rotor-turbine fan of Claim 18, the second spindle, the second base, and the second nozzle of Claim 18 to form a microcentrifuge having the nozzle outlet proximate the turbine vanes (centrifuge parts can be made by 3D printing and such parts are assembled into a complete centrifuge apparatus, Miller), but does not disclose providing bearings to the second spindle of Claim 18.
Hemfort discloses providing bearings to a centrifuge spindle (col. 1 lines 17-26). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second spindle in the method of the combination of Russel, Koreis, Miller and Richter with the bearings taught by Hemfort because supporting a spindle with ball bearings to permit rotation is a well-known practice in the centrifuge art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights