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 with respect to claim 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
In light of the claim amendments filed on 19 November 2025, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2 April 2025 is hereby withdrawn. Note that the status of claims 10-13 should be “currently amended”.
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 April 2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “claps” in line 10 should be ---clasp---. Appropriate correction is required.
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 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H10277434 (Yamada) in view of Berthier et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,673,133, hereafter Berthier), and further in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,517,475, hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada discloses a centrifuge (small centrifuge 1, Fig. 1) comprising: a housing comprising a centrifuge case (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a centrifuge lid (upper cover 2, Fig. 1) configured to interface with the centrifuge case (see Fig. 1), a centrifuge case comprising: a motor (DC motor 14, Fig. 5) within the centrifuge case for interfacing with and rotating a rotor (small centrifuge 9, Fig. 5); a damping system (anti-vibration rubber 23, anti-vibration spring 24, container rubber leg 21, Fig. 5) with the centrifuge case; and an activation system (door switch 50, Fig. 8) for activating the motor based on an interfacing of the centrifuge lid with the centrifuge case (page 5 lines 11-12, 23-24 of machine translation), but does not disclose the centrifuge is portable, wherein the housing comprises a single-use material, and an on-board power source within the centrifuge case; wherein the damping system comprises a lower damping member between the motor and a bottom wall of the centrifuge case and an upper damping member between the motor and a top wall of the centrifuge case.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
443
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), wherein the housing comprises a single-use material (“outer parts of the centrifuge can be made of easily discardable materials, such as cardboard”, col. 6 lines 63-4), and an on board power source (batteries 33, Fig. 1D) within the centrifuge case (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 Yamada with the on board power source and single-use material taught by Berthier for the purpose of preparing and shipping bodily fluid samples collected in any environment (col. 1 lines 33-35, Berthier).
The combination of Yamada and Berthier does not disclose wherein the damping system comprises a lower damping member between the motor and a bottom wall of the centrifuge case and an upper damping member between the motor and a top wall of the centrifuge case.
Brown discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the damping system comprises a lower damping member (lower vibration isolator 71, Fig. 2) between the motor (electric motor 80, top motor bracket 75, and motor mount 72, Fig. 2) and a bottom wall of the centrifuge case (centrifuge housing 16, Fig. 2) and an upper damping member (upper vibration isolator 49, Fig. 2) between the motor (electric motor 80 and , Fig. 2) and a top wall of the centrifuge case (centrifuge housing 16, 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 Yamada and Berthier with the lower and upper damping members as taught by Brown for the purpose of providing a seal and prevent entrance of contaminants as well as reducing the effect of engine vibrations (col. 6 lines 29-38, col. 9 lines 16-49, Brown).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown discloses a magnet (door switch magnet 56, Fig. 3, Yamada) on the centrifuge lid (upper cover 2, Fig. 1, Yamada) and magnetic switch (door switch 50, Fig. 8, Yamada) within the centrifuge housing and connected to the on-board power source (batteries 33, Fig. 1D, Berthier; the combination of Yamada and Berthier would have the motor connected to the on-board power source) and the motor (the magnetic switch is connected to DC motor 14 via electromagnetic clutch 12, Fig. 3, Yamada).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown discloses wherein the lower damping member (lower vibration isolator 71, Fig. 2, Brown) is lower gasket (lower vibration 71 which is identical to that used in the upper lid assembly 28, including a resilient rubber ring 52, col. 5 lines 48-52, Brown), wherein the upper damping member of the damping system is an upper gasket (an upper vibration isolator 49 in the form of a generally cylindrical, resilient rubber ring 52, col. 5 lines 19-20, Brown), and wherein the damping system further comprises an O-ring (O-ring gaskets 100, 101, or 102, Fig. 6, Brown).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown discloses wherein the on-board power source comprises at least one battery (batteries 33, Fig. 1D, Berthier).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown discloses wherein the at least one battery is rechargeable (col. 8 lines 18-20, Berthier).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown discloses wherein the centrifuge case further comprises an inner wall (dissipater plate mount 94, Fig. 6, Berthier), wherein the motor (electric motor 80, top motor bracket 75, and motor mount 72, Fig. 6, Berthier) is positioned at least partially within the inner wall, and wherein the damping system further comprises an O-ring (O-ring 101, Fig. 6, Berthier) between the motor and the inner wall (Fig. 6, Berthier).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown discloses the portable centrifuge of claim 14. Brown further discloses wherein the housing (primary support body 26, Fig. 5) and the centrifuge lid (lid assembly 28, Fig. 5) form an airtight cavity when mated together (an O-ring gasket 44 provides seal between the mating flanges of the lid assembly 28 and the support body 26, col. 5 lines 11-18). 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 modified Yamada with the airtight seal as taught by Brown for the purpose of isolating the rotor chamber from the external environment (col. 5 lines 11-18).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Berthier, and further in view of Brown, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Inaniwa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0031191, hereinafter Inaniwa).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yamada and Berthier discloses wherein the motor is a DC motor (14, Fig. 5), but does not disclose wherein the portable centrifuge further comprises a boost converter for receiving an input voltage from the on-board power source and yielding an output voltage to the DC motor.
Inaniwa discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the motor (the cooling fan motor 25 and 26 for the centrifuge motor 9, Fig. 2) is a DC motor (para. [0091]), and wherein the portable centrifuge further comprises a boost converter (bidirectional converter 4, Fig. 2) for receiving an input voltage from the on-board power source (AC power supply 22, Fig. 2) and yielding an output voltage to the DC motor (para. [0093]). 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 Yamada and Berthier with the boost converter as taught by Inaniwa for the purpose of providing a compact and low noise centrifuge even when the power frequency of power supply is different (para. [0010], Inaniwa).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Berthier, and further in view of Brown, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of DE 102019121598 (Hornek et al., hereinafter Hornek) and CN 105051989 (Scherer et al., hereinafter Scherer).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yamada and Berthier discloses a controller (speed controller circuit 39) configured to control a speed of the centrifuge, but does not disclose count a number of runs by the centrifuge; and generate an alert based on the portable centrifuge being in a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermine condition comprises at least one of a maximum number of runs or a minimum threshold of voltage of the on-board power source.
Hornek discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein a controller is configured to count a number of runs by the centrifuge (page 2 lines 27-29 of machine translation). 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 Yamada and Berthier with the controller configuration taught by Hornek for the purpose of preventing rotor failure and major damage (page 2 lines 27-29 of machine translation, Hornek).
Scherer discloses analogous art related to monitoring the on-board power source, wherein a controller is configured to generate an alert based on a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition comprises a minimum threshold of voltage of the on-board power source, in this case, a battery (page 7 lines 1-6 of machine translation). 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 Yamada and Berthier with the controller configuration of Scherer for the purpose of alerting the user when the battery reaches below the threshold voltage (page 7 lines 1-6 of machine translation, Scherer).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Berthier, and further in view of Brown, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of WO 2021061406 (Allard, et al., hereinafter Allard).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yamada and Berthier does not disclose the centrifuge lid comprises a lid tab; and the centrifuge case comprises: a tab notch defined in the centrifuge case and configured to receive the lid tab; and a lid rib, wherein the centrifuge case and the lid rib are configured to vertically overlap the lid tab based on rotation of the centrifuge lid relative to the centrifuge case.
Allard discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the centrifuge lid (protective cover 601, Fig. 92) comprises a lid tab (activation tab 608, Fig. 92); and the centrifuge case comprises: a tab notch (lock 645, Fig. 92) defined in the centrifuge case and configured to receive the lid tab; and a lid rib (activation slot 107, Fig. 92), wherein the centrifuge case (base cover 102, Fig. 92) and the lid rib are configured to vertically overlap the lid tab based on rotation of the centrifuge lid relative to the centrifuge case (para. [00223]). 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 Yamada and Berthier with the lid tab, tab notch, and lid rib taught by Allard for the purpose of covering the centrifuge container while providing clearance between an interior surface of the protective cover and the centrifuge container (para. [00199], Allard).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Berthier, and further in view of Brown, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ellsworth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0142196, hereinafter Ellsworth).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown does not explicitly disclose wherein the centrifuge case defines at least one foot recess, and wherein the damping system further comprises at least one elastic foot positioned within the foot recess.
Ellsworth discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge vibration isolation, wherein the centrifuge case (enclosure 6, Fig. 2) defines at least one foot recess (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein the damping system further comprises at least one elastic foot (feet 44, Fig. 2) positioned within the foot recess. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the centrifuge of the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown with the foot recess and elastic feet as taught by Ellsworth for the purpose of supporting the base element on a horizontal surface (para. [0026], Ellsworth).
PNG
media_image2.png
564
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, Brown and Ellsworth does not explicitly disclose wherein the difference in height between the elastic foot and the foot recess is less than 2 mm. However, selecting the height difference of less than 2 mm constitutes no more than routine mechanical design optimization. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that minimizing the height difference between the elastic foot and its recess improves stability. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.20 454, 456, 105 USPO 233, 238 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Berthier, and further in view of Brown, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Rochat (U.S. Patent No. 6,705,983).
Regarding claims 26-28, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown does not disclose wherein the portable centrifuge is less than 100 mm, less than 75 mm, or less than 50 mm in length, width, and depth.
Rochat discloses analogous art related to compact centrifuge, wherein the portable centrifuge is less than 100 mm, less than 75 mm, or less than 50 mm in length, width, and depth (the centrifugal unit has a radius between 25 and 50 mm and a height between 75 and 125% of the radius, col. 2 lines 64). 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 centrifuge of the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown to be less than 100 mm, less than 75 mm, or less than 50 mm in length, width, and depth as taught by Rochat for the purpose of reducing the weight of the centrifugal device, reducing its size, while facilitating its handling (col. 3 lines 56-61, Rochat).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Berthier, and further in view of Brown, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Winkelman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 20030113930, hereinafter Winkelman).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, and Brown does not disclose wherein the rotor comprises a center portion configured to engage a motor hub of the portable centrifuge; a support location for an aerodynamic tube having a height and that is elongated in a direction perpendicular to the height of the aerodynamic tube, the support location comprising: a lower clasp extending outwards from the center portion; arms extending outwards from the center portion; and an upper clasp on the arms, wherein the lower clasp and the upper clasp are configured to interface with a rim of the aerodynamic tube.
Winkelman discloses analogous art related a portable centrifuge, wherein the rotor comprises a center portion (gimbal 54, Fig. 13) configured to engage a motor hub (rotor shaft 52, Fig. 13) of the portable centrifuge; a support location for an aerodynamic tube (56, Fig. 13) having a height and that is elongated in a direction perpendicular to the height of the aerodynamic tube, the support location comprising: a lower clasp (see annotated Fig. 13 below) extending outwards from the center portion; arms (see annotated Fig. 13 below) extending outwards from the center portion; and an upper clasp (see annotated Fig. 13 below) on the arms, wherein the lower clasp and the upper clasp are configured to interface with a rim of the aerodynamic tube (see annotated Fig. 13 below). 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 Yamada, Berthier, and Brown with the support location as taught by Winkelman for the purpose of separating and analyzing blood sample during centrifugation (Abstract).
PNG
media_image3.png
606
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, Brown, and Winkelman discloses wherein the upper clasp and the lower clasp do not overlap in a vertical direction (see annotated Fig. 13, Winkelman).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, Brown, and Winkelman discloses wherein the rotor further comprises a counterweight (60, Fig. 13, Winkelman) extending outwards from the center portion in a direction opposite from the support location.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yamada, Berthier, Brown, and Winkelman discloses wherein the counterweight comprises a rib (see annotated Fig. 13, Winkelman) extending downwards from the counterweight and extensions (see annotated Fig. 13, Winkelman) extending outwards from the counterweight in a direction of rotation.
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