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 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument “[t]he prior art therefore does not disclose an opening in the housing of the centrifuge, which is formed by a ceiling opening (30) and a side opening (28), which can be closed or opened by means of different mechanisms and different doors” (page 5, Remarks) and “[o]nly one door for closing an opening by means of one adjustment mechanism is known in the state of the art” (page 6, Remarks), the examiner notes that as set forth in the Office action sent on 3 July 2025, Eberle teaches a centrifuge having a safety vessel and a protective wall forming a safety unit that is displaced by an adjustment mechanism to open and close a side opening. Nichols teaches a centrifuge housing in which an access opening extends from a side wall into the ceiling, and thereby motivating the formation of a combined side and ceiling access opening to accommodate automated loading apparatus. Hayasaka teaches a centrifuge having a ceiling opening that is opened and closed by a separate closing wall actuated by its own adjustment mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the centrifuge Eberle, which already has a side opening, with a larger opening in the form of a ceiling opening adjoining a side opening as taught by Nichols for the purpose of providing a larger opening to accommodate robotic apparatuses that need to access an interior of automated centrifuge (para. [0019], Nichols) and for the purpose of installing or removing the centrifuge rotor as taught by Hayasaka (col. 2 lines 62-64, Hayasaka). Separating the closure of the side opening and the ceiling opening into two distinct adjustment mechanisms represents a predictable design choice that allows for different openings based on the needs of the actions performed (e.g., loading sample containers by a robotic apparatus or installing the centrifuge rotor).
Applicant’s argument that “[i]n Nichols, the door is designed to be hinged. This door completely closes the opening with one movement. It is not possible to decouple the movement for closing the ceiling and the side movement of the opening” (page 5, Remarks) is not persuasive, because Nichols is not relied upon for teaching separate mechanisms. Rather, Nichols is relied upon for the motivation to extend the opening into the ceiling, while Hayasaka supplies the teaching of a ceiling-mounted closing wall actuated by a separate mechanism.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10 May 2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 46, as stated in the Office action sent on 3 July 2025, it is unclear what structure drives the recited driven horizontally displaceable sliding carriage. Claims 47-48 are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency upon said claim.
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 26, 30, 35-42, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102013104141 (Eberle et al., hereinafter Eberle) in view of Nichols et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0135197, hereinafter Nichols) and Hayasaka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,004,453, hereinafter Hayasaka).
Regarding claim 26, Eberle discloses a centrifuge (10, Fig. 1) for automatic loading, comprising a drive shaft (see annotated Fig. 1), which is driven in a rotatable manner about a rotor axis (centrifuge axis 24; Fig. 1), a rotor (26; Fig. 2), which is releasably coupled for conjoint rotation to the drive shaft, and has mounts (hanger 28; Fig. 1) for containers for media to be centrifuged, a housing (outer housing 12; Fig. 1) with lateral outer walls (see annotated Fig. 1) delimiting the centrifuge and with a ceiling (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein at least one outer wall has a side opening (recess 16; Fig. 1) facing sideways for loading the rotor as required, a safety vessel (inner housing 14; see annotated Fig. 2) into which the drive shaft projects and which encloses the rotor, a protective wall (see annotated Fig. 2), which surrounds the safety vessel at least partially, which protective wall is adapted at least to the shape of the adjacent outer wall with side opening such that it closes off the side opening (see closed state of protective wall in Fig. 1), wherein the safety vessel and the protective wall form a firmly interconnected safety unit (e.g., see Fig. 2), which is in operative connection with an adjustment mechanism (30; Fig. 2) by means of which the safety unit can be moved such that the protective wall opens and closes the side opening and therefore the protective wall can be moved out of a closing position into an opening position, and vice versa (see Fig. 3 and 4), but does not disclose that the side opening extends to the ceiling and is adjoined by a ceiling opening in the ceiling, so as to create a loading and unloading opening formed from the side opening and ceiling opening, wherein a second adjustment mechanism can be used to open and close the ceiling opening by means of a further closing wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
608
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nichols discloses analogous art related to an automated centrifuge with side and top access, wherein the side opening (opening 105; Fig. 4) extends to the ceiling (top 104b; Fig. 4) and is adjoined by a ceiling opening (opening 105; Fig. 4) in the ceiling (see e.g., Fig. 4), so as to create a loading and unloading opening formed from the side opening and ceiling opening (para. [0019], openings can be configured to accommodate robotic apparatuses that need to access an interior of automated centrifuge). 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 Eberle with the side opening adjoined by a ceiling opening as taught by Nichols for the purpose of providing a larger opening to accommodate robotic apparatuses that need to access an interior of automated centrifuge (para. [0019] of Nichols).
Hayasaka discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein an adjustment mechanism (front rollers 19a, rear rollers 19b, and guide rails 20, guide roller 21; Fig. 2) can be used to open and close the ceiling opening (central opening; col. 2 lines 55-64) by means of a closing wall (door 18; 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 Eberle with the adjustment mechanism and closing wall taught by Hayasaka for the purpose of opening and closing a ceiling opening through which the centrifuge rotor may be installed and removed (col. 2 lines 62-64 of Hayasaka).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses the closing wall (door 18; Fig. 2, Hayasaka) is mounted so that it can be displaced translationally, and at right angles to the rotor axis (as shown in Fig. 2, Hayasaka).
Regarding claim 35, modified Eberle discloses the closing wall as discussed in the rejections above, and Eberle discloses that the safety vessel (inner housing 14; Fig. 2) is made of sheet metal. Modified Eberle does not directly teach that the closing wall (see annotated Fig. 2 above) is made of sheet metal. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the closing wall out of the same material, sheet metal, as the safety vessel, because the component can be left completely in one piece, which increases the protective function at lower manufacturing costs (page 2 lines 18-20 of machine translation of Eberle).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the protective wall is part of a protective housing (see annotated Fig. 2 above, Eberle) that completely encloses the safety vessel (inner housing 14, Fig. 2, Eberle) in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the protective housing is completely closed in the horizontal direction over its height (see annotated Fig. 2 above, Eberle).
Regarding claim 38, modified Eberle discloses the protective housing as discussed in the rejections above, and Eberle discloses that the safety vessel (inner housing 14; Fig. 2) is made of sheet metal. Modified Eberle does not directly teach that the protective housing (see annotated Fig. 2 above) is made of sheet metal. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the protective housing out of the same material, sheet metal, as the safety vessel, because the component can be left completely in one piece, which increases the protective function at lower manufacturing costs (page 2 lines 18-20 of machine translation of Eberle).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the safety vessel (inner housing 14; Fig. 2, Eberle) is made of sheet metal (page 2 lines 18-20 of machine translation, Eberle).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the safety vessel (inner housing 14; Fig. 2, Eberle) is rotationally symmetrical and is of a closed design over its height in the radial direction (the inner housing 14 extends completely circumferentially in one piece over the entire circumference; page 3 lines 23-25 of machine translation, Eberle).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the closing wall (door 18, Fig. 2, Hayasaka) is dimensioned such that, in the closing position, the closing wall will completely cover the upper portion of the safety vessel (door 18 closes the entire central opening in the top plate 15, thereby covering over the entire rotor chamber 11, which corresponds to the safety vessel, Fig. 1, Hayasaka).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the closing wall (door 18, Fig. 2, Hayasaka) is dimensioned such that, in the closing position, the closing wall will completely cover the upper portion of the safety vessel (door 18 closes the entire central opening in the top plate 15, thereby covering over the entire rotor chamber 11, which corresponds to the protective housing, Fig. 1, Hayasaka).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses that the safety vessel (inner housing 14, Fig. 2, Eberle) has a central recess which allows the opening and closing movement of the safety unit relative to the drive shaft (the central recess of inner housing 14 though which the drive shaft and motor 22 projects into the rotor chamber as shown in Fig. 2, Eberle).
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Rees (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0352220).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose that the first and second adjustment mechanisms are mechanically coupled to one another, resulting in the opening movement and the closing movement of the protective wall and of the closing wall to be coordinated.
Rees discloses an analogous art related to sliding door structure having sliding door and pivoting door, wherein the first (upper pivot hinge 210; Fig. 2F) and second adjustment mechanisms (upper bogie 214; Fig. 2F) are mechanically coupled to one another (via stationary door magnet 212, sliding door magnet 218, upper support track 110; Fig. 2F), resulting in the opening movement and the closing movement of the protective wall and of the closing wall to be coordinated (stationary door 114 is first pivoted and opened, then the sliding door 116A slides to open as shown in Fig. 2D; para. [0021]-[0022]). 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 the first and second door adjustment mechanisms of the centrifuge of the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the first and second door adjustment mechanisms of Rees for the purpose of providing maximum opening (para. [0002] of Rees), as the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), Rationale B.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose that the first and second adjustment mechanisms are coupled to one another in such a way that, during the opening movement, the protective wall will be the first to open, with the closing wall opening with some time delay thereafter, and, during the closing movement, the closing wall will be the first to close, with the protective wall closing with some time delay thereafter.
Rees discloses that the first (upper pivot hinge 210; Fig. 2F) and second (upper bogie 214; Fig. 2F) adjustment mechanisms are coupled to one another in such a way that, during the opening movement, the protective wall (corresponding to stationary door 114) will be the first to open, with the closing wall (corresponding to sliding door 116A) opening with some time delay thereafter (stationary door 114 is first pivoted and opened, then the sliding door 116A slides to open as shown in Fig. 2D; para. [0021]-[0022]), and, during the closing movement, the closing wall will be the first to close, with the protective wall closing with some time delay thereafter (for closing the opening, the process disclosed in para. [0021]-[0022] would be reversed). 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 the first and second door adjustment mechanisms of the centrifuge of the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the first and second door adjustment mechanisms of Rees for the purpose of providing maximum opening (para. [0002] of Rees), as the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), Rationale B).
Claims 31, 32, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of CN 211524544 (Yao, hereinafter Yao).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose the closing wall is designed in such a way that it extends into the side opening in the closed position, thereby forming a plane with the protective wall on the outside of the centrifuge.
Yao discloses an analogous art related to a corner automatic door (Abstract of machine translation), wherein the closing wall (corresponding to second door leaf 6; Fig. 3) is designed in such a way that it extends into the side opening in the closed position (the part that extends into the side opening in the closed position is the fan frame 6; Fig. 4), thereby forming a plane with the protective wall (corresponding to first door leaf 4; 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 modified the configuration of the closing wall and protective wall/housing of the centrifuge of the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka according to the teachings of Yao for the purpose of achieving good sealing when closed and opening can realize full-opening corner; page 2 lines 6-9 of machine translation of Yao).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, Hayasaka, and Yao discloses in the closing position, the closing wall (corresponding to second door leaf 6; Fig. 3) and the protective wall (corresponding to first door leaf 4; Fig. 1, Yao) overlap in certain areas, and for this purpose the protective wall has a shoulder in which part of the closing wall engages (since the first door leaf 4 is embedded in the embedding groove 60 of the fan frame 6 of the second door leaf 5 shown in Fig. 4, there is overlap where the part of the first door leaf is inside the groove, and either side of the groove 60 can be considered a shoulder of the second door leaf 6, Yao).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose in the closed position, the safety vessel and/or the protective housing bear(s) sealingly against the closing wall.
Yao discloses in the closed position, the safety vessel and/or the protective housing (corresponding to first door leaf 4; Fig. 1) bear(s) sealingly against the closing wall (corresponding to second door leaf 6; Fig. 3) (sealing rubber strip inside sealing rubber strip groove 61 for sealing contact with the first door leaf 4 embedded in the door leaf embedding groove 60; Fig. 4, page 2 lines 23-25 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 modified the configuration of the closing wall and protective wall/housing of the centrifuge of the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka according to the teachings of Yao for the purpose of achieving good sealing when closed and opening can realize full-opening corner (page 2 lines 6-9 of machine translation of Yao).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, Hayasaka, and Yao discloses the safety vessel and/or the protective housing (corresponding to first door leaf 4; Fig. 1, Yao) has/have a seal on its respective side facing the closing wall (corresponding to second door leaf 6; Fig. 3, Yao) in the closed position (sealing rubber strip inside sealing rubber strip groove 61 for sealing contact with the first door leaf 4 embedded in the door leaf embedding groove 60; Fig. 4, page 2 lines 23-25 of machine translation, Yao).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Kubota (U.S. Patent No. 4,221,325).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose an air in-take opening in the closing wall and an air intake opening in the ceiling of the housing are provided, which openings are aligned with one another in the closed position.
Kubota discloses an analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein an air in-take opening (air inlet 42; Fig. 1) in the closing wall (lid 15; Fig. 1) and an air intake opening (opening 13; Fig. 1) in the ceiling (top panel 12; Fig. 1) of the housing (outer casing 1; Fig. 1) are provided, which openings are aligned with one another in the closed position (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 centrifuge of the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the air in-take openings of Kubota for the purpose of cooling the centrifuge rotor (Abstract of Kubota).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Tscheu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,280,975, hereinafter Tscheu).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose a spring is provided which acts on the closing wall in the direction of the closed position, so that the closing wall is opened against the force of the spring.
Tscheu discloses an analogous art related to a mechanism for locking a cover to a housing of a laboratory centrifuge, wherein a spring (7; Fig. 1) is provided which acts on the closing wall (col. 2 lines 48-52). While the spring of Tscheu acts on the closing wall in the direction of the open position, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of configuring a spring to act on the closing wall in the direction of the closed position, so that the closing wall is opened against the force of the spring. This would be to ensure that the lid automatically returns to and remains in the closed position when not being held open. The use of a spring to bias a movable component toward a closed position is a design choice that yields predictable results by enhancing the reliability and safety of the centrifuge. 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 Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the spring as taught by Tscheu for the purpose of providing an additional force in assisting in the opening or closing of the closing wall (col. 2 lines 48-52 of Tscheu).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Briggs et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,143,170, hereinafter Briggs).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose the closing wall has support walls that extend laterally downwards and are coupled to the second adjustment mechanism.
Briggs discloses an analogous art related to a centrifuge (Fig. 3), characterized in that the closing wall (lid 38; Fig. 3) has support walls (support column 44; Fig. 3) that extend laterally downwards and are coupled to the second adjustment mechanism (gas springs 40; 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 Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the support walls taught by Briggs for the purpose of providing a hinged removable cover (col. 4 lines 14-30 of Briggs).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of CN 106575859 (Zhang et al., hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka discloses the first adjustment mechanism (30; Fig. 2 of Eberle), but does not disclose the first adjustment mechanism has at least one push rod which engages the side of the safety unit in an articulated manner and which is coupled in an articulated manner to a driven horizontally displaceable sliding carriage at the bottom of the centrifuge.
Zhang discloses analogous art related to a switch cabinet door closure, characterized in that the first adjustment mechanism has at least one push rod (first driving rod 24; Fig. 13B) which engages the side of the safety unit (corresponding to the side of the door 121; Fig. 12B and 13B) in an articulated manner (via rotating shaft 123; Fig. 13B) and which is coupled in an articulated manner (via column 1232 and slot 1222; Fig. 13B) to a driven horizontally displaceable sliding carriage (107; Fig. 13B). 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 the adjustment mechanism of the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the adjustment mechanism of Zhang for the purpose of opening or closing a door (page 3 lines 25-28 of machine translation of Zhang), as the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), Rationale B. Regarding the limitation relating to the driven horizontally displaceable sliding carriage located at the bottom of the centrifuge, the examiner notes that there are a finite number of positions (e.g., side, top, bottom) in which the sliding carriage could be placed, and positioning the sliding carriage at the bottom of the centrifuge would have been an obvious choice to try since it would not interfere with the opening/closing movements of the safety vessel. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), Rationale E. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Nichols, and further in view of Hayasaka, as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Eberle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0056893, hereinafter Eberle ‘893).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka does not disclose a safety cover is provided which surrounds the drive shaft and covers the central recess in the closed position and which, together with the safety vessel and the closing wall, completely delimits a rotor chamber with the rotor, except for the passage for the drive shaft.
Eberle ‘893 discloses an analogous art related to a centrifuge, comprising a safety cover (bellows 34; Fig. 1-3, see annotated Fig. 3 below) is provided which surrounds the drive shaft (37; Fig. 1) and covers the central recess in the closed position and which, together with the safety vessel (26; Fig. 1) and the closing wall (corresponding to cover 16; Fig. 1), completely delimits a rotor chamber with the rotor (32; Fig. 1), except for the passage for the drive shaft (see annotated 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 Eberle, Nichols, and Hayasaka with the safety cover taught by Eberle ‘893 for the purpose of decoupling vibrations occurring during operation and for sealing a recess provided in the safety vessel (para. [0040] of Eberle ‘893).
PNG
media_image3.png
447
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 47 and 48 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art does not teach or suggest the second adjustment mechanism comprises at least one driver in the area of the sliding carriage, which operatively couples when the sliding carriage has been displaced over a predetermined distance.
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