Application/Control Number: 17/719,759 Page 2
Art Unit: 1774
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 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Matsushima lacks a ‘rigid motor control board supporting the motor’ and ‘motor struts on the rigid motor control board.’ A ‘rigid motor control board’ is completely lacking in Matsushima, and per the teachings of Matsushima, the motor 1 is directly connected to the alleged elastic mounts. Moreover, the alleged motor struts identified in the annotated figure above are at best features of the motor 1 itself, and they are not ‘on the rigid motor control board’ as required by claim 6” (page 7, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 6 of Matsushima discloses motor 1 mounted to an intermediate rigid support structure that interfaces with elastic bodies 5, which in turn connects to frame 6. Although Matsushima does not explicitly use the term “motor control board”, the claimed term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. Under such interpretation, a rigid structural member that supports the motor and transmits forces to the elastic mounting members constitutes a rigid motor control board.
Further, the structural extensions between the motor mounting region and the elastic mounts constitute “motor struts” under BRI of the term “strut”, which encompasses a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length” (“Strut.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strut. Accessed 27 Feb. 2026.). The claim does not require the struts to be separate pieces from the motor support structure, nor does it require any particular geometry. The rejections over Matsushima and other cited references of record are still deemed valid and are maintained.
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 13 April 2022. 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 6, 7, 13, 14, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima (U.S. Patent No. 6,390,965) in view of Berthier et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,673,133, hereafter Berthier).
Regarding claim 6, Matsushima discloses a centrifuge (Fig. 6) for separating fluids comprises: a housing (frame 6, Fig. 6) defining a receiving area; a motor (1, Fig. 6) within the receiving area, where the motor is configured to couple to a rotor (20, Fig. 6) and rotate the rotor; a vibration damping system (see annotated Fig. 6 below) configured to dampen vibrations from the motor on the housing (col. 8 lines 15-18), wherein the vibration damping system comprises: a rigid motor control board supporting the motor (see annotated Fig. 6); motor struts (see annotated Fig. 6) on the rigid motor control board; housing struts (flange 6a, Fig. 6) extending from the housing within the receiving area (receiving area of housing/frame 6, Fig. 6); and elastic mounts (elastic bodies 5, Fig. 6) connecting each motor strut with a corresponding housing strut, wherein the vibration damping system dampens vibrations from the motor by suspending the motor within the receiving area and isolating the motor from the housing (Fig. 6), but does not disclose that the centrifuge is portable; an on board power source within the receiving area.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The preamble of claim one recites “portable centrifuge”, which is considered intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02. Nevertheless, Berthier discloses a portable centrifuge (col. 2 lines 66 – col. 3 line 3), and an on board power source (batteries 33, Fig. 1D) within the receiving area (centrifuge frame 16, Fig. 1D). 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 Matsushima with the on board power source taught by Berthier for the purpose of preparing and shipping bodily fluid samples collected in any environment (col. 1 lines 33-35, Berthier).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier discloses wherein the on board power source comprises rechargeable batteries (col. 8 lines 18-20, Berthier).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier discloses further comprising the rotor, wherein the rotor comprises an upper support, a proximal support, and a distal support, wherein the rotor defines top entry opening on a top side of the rotor and a distal opening opposite from the proximal support (see annotated partial Fig. 1D of Berthier below); wherein the rotor further comprises a proximal slide and a distal slide (see annotated partial Fig. 1D of Berthier).
PNG
media_image2.png
355
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier discloses wherein the distal opening is defined between the upper support and the distal support (see annotated partial Fig. 1D of Berthier above).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier discloses wherein the top side of the rotor comprises a planar surface normal to an axis of rotation of the rotor (see rack 42, Fig. 6, Matsushima; see top surface of upper support in annotated partial Fig. 1D of Berthier).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of GB 777148 (Walter).
Regarding 10, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose a motor weight on the rigid motor control board.
Walter discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, comprising a motor weight (weight 26, 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 Matsushima and Berthier with the motor weight of Walter for the purpose of changing the center of gravity so that the weight of the rotating parts should be as low as possible (page 2 lines 30-54, Walter).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of van Steinvoren (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0280064).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose wherein the vibration damping system comprises a tuned mass damper apparatus comprising: a damper mass, a damper wall, and an elastic coupler.
Van Steinvoren discloses analogous art related to damping oscillations, comprising a tuned mass damper apparatus comprising: a damper mass (mass 410, Fig. 3), a damper wall (base 440, Fig. 3), and an elastic coupler (spring 420, Fig. 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 centrifuge of the combination of Matsushima and Berthier with the tuned mass damper apparatus taught by van Steinvoren for the purpose of reducing the oscillations in a rotor (para. [0004], van Steinvoren).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of van DE 3618495 (Carlson et al., hereinafter Carlson).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose wherein the vibration damping system comprises a tuned mass damper apparatus comprising: a damper mass, a damper wall, and an elastic coupler.
Carlson discloses analogous art related to damping oscillations, comprising a tuned mass damper apparatus comprising: a damper mass (central mass 21, Fig. 2), a damper wall (metal housing 23, Fig. 2), and an elastic coupler (springs 88, Fig. 2). 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 Matsushima and Berthier with the tuned mass damper apparatus taught by Carlson for the purpose of reducing vibrational forces for a rotor hub (claim 1, Carlson).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of CN 202146547 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose an elastic motor pivot within the receiving area, wherein the motor is positioned above an elastic motor pivot.
Zhang discloses analogous art related to a motor for a flywheel (Abstract), comprising an elastic motor pivot (pivot X, Fig. 3) within the receiving area (receiving area of frame 100, Fig. 3), wherein the motor (1, Fig. 3) is positioned above an elastic motor pivot (pivot X is fixed with the motor base 2, and the motor is fixed on the motor base, Abstract). 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 Matsushima and Berthier with the elastic motor pivot of Zhang for the purpose of maintaining stable running speed (para. [0008], Zhang).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yavilevich (U.S. Patent No. 6,234,948).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose wherein the rotor further comprises a counterbalance tube supported on the rotor, wherein the counterbalance tube further comprises a viscous fluid, a mass element, and a spring element within the counterbalance tube.
Yavilevich discloses analogous art related to a centrifugation assembly, wherein the rotor further comprises a counterbalance tube (ampule 40, Fig. 3d) supported on the rotor, wherein the counterbalance tube further comprises a viscous fluid (col. 7 lines 54-59), a mass element (free mass 66, Fig. 4b), and a spring element within the counterbalance tube (spring 72, Fig. 4b). 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 fluid/mass/spring assembly of Yavilevich into the rotor of Matsushima and Berthier for the purpose of improving stability during rotation by dynamically adjusting the location of the gravity center (col. 2 lines 20-37, Yavilevich).
Claim 23 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lurz (U.S. Patent No. 7,150,708).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose wherein the rotor further comprises an aerofoil head and an aerofoil tail, wherein the aerofoil head defines a leading edge of the rotor and the aerofoil tail defines a trailing edge of the rotor.
Lurz discloses analogous art related to a laboratory centrifuge, wherein the rotor further comprises an aerofoil head (cladding component 12 and/or 16, Fig. 1) and an aerofoil tail (cladding component 20, Fig. 1; “a cladding component 12 is configured as seen in the direction of motion ahead of the front end face 7 of the container 6 facing into the direction of airflow. An illustratively identically designed cladding component may be mounted symmetrically to such a configuration also ahead of the rear end face 8 in order to impart its own full aerodynamic cladding to each container”, col. 5 lines 26-32), wherein the aerofoil head defines a leading edge of the rotor and the aerofoil tail defines a trailing edge of the rotor (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 configured the rotor of the combination of Matsushima and Berthier with an aerofoil head an aerofoil tail relative to the direction of motion as taught by Lurz for the purpose of reducing air turbulence at the sample container 6 (col. 4 lines 30-33, Lurz).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Matsushima, Berthier, and Lurz discloses wherein a profile of the aerofoil head (cladding component 12 and/or 16, Fig. 1) is different from a profile of the aerofoil tail (cladding component 20, Fig. 1).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Berthier, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ellsworth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0142196, hereinafter Ellsworth).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Matsushima and Berthier does not disclose a frictional support under each elastic mount.
Ellsworth discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge support, comprising a frictional support (cylindrical sleeve 42, “a bolt or the light”, and “snubber washer”, para. [0026], Fig. 2) under each elastic mount (grommet 40, Fig. 2). 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 Matsushima and Berthier with the frictional support taught by Ellsworth for the purpose of resisting the forces applied by the rotor to the enclosure (para. [0026]-[0027], Ellsworth).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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