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 “[t]he cited combination fails to teach or suggest the amended wireless charging structure” (page 5, Remarks), the examiner notes that, as discussed in the rejections below, Shin teaches the transmission module 42 is fixed to mounting cap 22, the motor shaft passes through transmission 42 to drive the rotor header 1, and the receiving unit 41 is coupled to the rotor header 1 (Fig. 1b, page 6 lines 40-44 of machine translation). Because the rotor header 1 is rotated by the motor driving shaft 211 while the transmission charging module 42 is fixed to the stationary mounting cap 22, the shaft inherently and necessarily rotates relative to the transmission charging module 42. As the shaft 211 passes through the transmission charging module 42, the module must include a shaft through-hole with a diameter larger than the shaft 211 to allow such rotation. With respect to the “predetermined interval” between the transmission charging module 42 and the reception charging module 41, Shin discloses that the transmitting unit 42 and the receiving unit 41 are in the state of mutual close contact and power is supplied from the transmitting unit to the receiving unit (page 5 lines 11-17 of machine translation, Shin). Therefore, maintaining a predetermined interval between the modules is inherent in Shin’s wireless charging configuration.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “[t]he cited combination fails to teach or suggest the amended rotation shaft unit limitations as claimed in the present context” (page 6, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Romanauskas discloses a swing bucket centrifuge rotor wherein a pipe extending rotation shaft (abutment 114A, 114B, Fig. 2C) includes an angle limiting groove (groove 126 and support surface 124, Fig. 2C) and a stoper (support surface 40, Fig. 3C) formed below the angle limiting groove to limit the rotational angel of the bucket. Romanauskas teaches that this configuration provides support for both the portion of the bucket that lies above and below a predetermined plane, thereby reducing bending moment applied to the rotor body (col. 2, lines 1-2). The modification of Shin’s rotational shaft unit 111 to include an angle limiting groove and stopper as taught by Romanauskas merely involves providing known angular stop geometry on an existing shaft extension to achieve predictable controlled bucket positioning. Such modification would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not constitute an “extensive redesign”, but rather the application of a known improvement to a similar swing bucket centrifuge structure, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the locking pin and locking recess must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Although the subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement, if a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph - description requirement, or denial of the benefit of the filing date of a previously filed application, as appropriate. See MPEP 2163.02.
The examiner thus concludes that a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. From MPEP 2163.04(I)(B), since the claims at issue are amended claims, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, the rejection is considered proper. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “[MPEP] § 2163.04 (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection.”).
Specifically, with regard to amended claim 1, the limitation of "wherein the left-right movement valve shaft comprises a locking pin configured to be inserted into a locking recess formed in the front-rear movement valve shaft when the front-rear movement valve shaft is in a rearward position, thereby mechanically latching the front-rear movement valve shaft against forward movement during rotation of the rotor header" is subject matter not properly described in the application as filed. The examiner did not find in the abstract, specification, drawings, or claims of the original disclosure filed on 22 March 2022 any support for the locking pin and locking recess.
If Applicant can establish that said subject matter is not new matter, subject to further review of arguments and/or evidence, said subject matter must have antecedent basis in the specification per MPEP 608.01(o).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101893206 (Shin) in view of Sobolak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0023991, hereinafter Sobolak), and further in view of and further in view of Romanauskas (U.S. Patent No. 5,624,370).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a swing rotor assembly (A, Fig. 1a) for a centrifuge that is mounted and rotated inside a housing of the centrifuge (900, Fig. 5), the swing rotor assembly comprising: a driving unit (driving device 2, Fig. 1a) configured by a motor (drive motor 21, Fig. 1a) having a driving shaft (rotary shaft 211, Fig. 1b), a mounting cap (22, Fig. 1b) mounted on the upper portion of the motor and provided with a flange (flange portion 221, Fig. 1b) at the lower end, and a transmission charging module (transmitting unit 42, Fig. 1b) fixed on the mounting cap to wirelessly charge a battery (corresponding to transmitting unit 41, Fig. 1b); wherein the transmission charging module includes a shaft through-hole through which the motor driving shaft passes, and the shaft through-hole has a diameter larger than a diameter of the motor driving shaft such that the transmission charging module is not rotated together with the motor driving shaft (Shin teaches the transmission module 42 is fixed to mounting cap 22, the motor shaft passes through transmission 42 to drive the rotor header 1, and the receiving unit 41 is coupled to the rotor header 1, Fig. 1b, page 6 lines 40-44 of machine translation; because the rotor header 1 is rotated by the motor driving shaft 211 while the transmission charging module 42 is fixed to the stationary mounting cap 22, the shaft inherently and necessarily rotates relative to the transmission charging module 42. As the shaft 211 passes through the transmission charging module 42, the module must include a shaft through-hole with a diameter larger than the shaft 211 to allow such rotation); a rotor header 1 including a case in which U-shaped curved portions (Fig. 1a) are formed on both sides for mounting a bucket 11 while being mounted and rotated on a motor driving shaft 211, an angle maintaining unit 3 which is mounted inside the case to control an angle of the bucket and discharge a centrifuged sample, a reception charging module 41 mounted on the bottom of the case to wirelessly charge the battery (which is part of the transmitting unit 42, page 5 lines 11-17 of machine translation, Fig. 1b), and a rotation shaft unit (hinge shaft 111, Fig. 3) mounted inside the case and rotatably supported at both sides of the bucket; and a bucket 11 mounted on the rotation shaft unit and rotating up and down by a centrifugal force while rotating together with the rotor header, wherein the angle maintaining unit is configured by a first solenoid valve (31, Fig. 4a and 4b) having a front-rear movement valve shaft (advancing and retreating shaft 311, Fig. 4a and 4b) that moves forward and backward to fix a position of the bucket (11, Fig. 4a and 4b) so that the bucket is maintained to be inclined at a predetermined angle by a centrifuge force (page 4 lines 38-43 of machine translation), wherein the rotation shaft unit is configured by a pair of rotation shaft supports (see annotated partial Fig. 7a below) mounted inside the case, a rotation shaft (see annotated partial Fig. 7a) supported by the pair of rotation shaft supports, a pipe extending rotation shaft (see annotated partial Fig. 7a) formed between the pair of rotation shaft supports by extending the rotation shaft, wherein the transmission charging module 42 and the reception charging module 41 are wirelessly connected to each other, so that an induced electromotive force is transmitted from the transmission charging module to the reception charging module to be charged (page 5 lines 11-17 of machine translation, Fig. 1b, Shin), while maintaining a predetermined interval between the transmission charging module and the reception charging module (see annotated Fig. 1b; Shin discloses that the transmitting unit 42 and the receiving unit 41 are in the state of mutual close contact and power is supplied from the transmitting unit to the receiving unit, page 5 lines 11-17 of machine translation), but does not disclose a second solenoid valve having a left-right movement valve shaft to fix the valve shaft of the first solenoid to a rear side so as to prevent malfunction or sudden backward movement of the first solenoid valve; wherein the left-right movement valve shaft comprises a locking pin configured to be inserted into a locking recess formed in the front-rear movement valve shaft when the front-rear movement valve shaft is in a rearward position, thereby mechanically latching the front-rear movement valve shaft against forward movement during rotation of the rotor header; an angle limiting groove formed on the pipe extending rotation shaft to limit the bucket at a constant rotational angle, and a stopper formed below the angle limiting groove to limit the rotational angle of the angle limiting groove.
PNG
media_image1.png
848
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sobolak discloses analogous art related to a locking and unlocking mechanism, with a second solenoid valve (solenoid 40, Fig. 4A) having a left-right movement valve shaft (solenoid plunger 42, Fig. 4A) to fix the valve shaft of the first solenoid (corresponding to piston 39, Fig. 4A) to a rear side so as to prevent malfunction or sudden backward movement of the first solenoid valve (Abstract); wherein the left-right movement valve shaft comprises a locking pin (solenoid plunger tip 46, Fig. 4A) configured to be inserted into a locking recess formed in the front-rear movement valve shaft when the front-rear movement valve shaft is in a rearward position, thereby mechanically latching the front-rear movement valve shaft against forward movement during rotation of the rotor header (para. [0023]). 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 rotor assembly of Shin with the second solenoid valve of Sobolak for the purpose of locking engagement of the lock bolt or the front-rear movement valve shaft to prevent axial movement thereof (Abstract, Sobolak).
The combination of Shin and Sobolak does not disclose an angle limiting groove formed on the pipe extending rotation shaft to limit the bucket at a constant rotational angle, and a stopper formed below the angle limiting groove to limit the rotational angle of the angle limiting groove.
Romanauskas discloses analogous art related to a bucket for use in a swinging bucket centrifuge rotor, wherein an angle limiting groove (groove 126 and support surface 124, Fig. 2C) formed on the pipe extending rotation shaft (abutment 114A, 114B, Fig. 2C) to limit the bucket at a constant rotational angle, and a stopper (support surface 40, Fig. 3C) formed below the angle limiting groove to limit the rotational angle of the angle limiting groove (Fig. 3C). 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 swing rotor assembly in the combination of Shin and Sobolak with the angle limiting groove and stopper as taught by Romanauskas for the purpose of providing support for both the portion of the bucket that lies both above and below a predetermined plane, thus reducing the bending moment applied to the rotor body (col. 2 lines 1-2, Romanauskas). The modification of Shin’s rotational shaft unit 111 to include an angle limiting groove and stopper as taught by Romanauskas merely involves providing known angular stop geometry on an existing shaft extension to achieve predictable controlled bucket positioning, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143.
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