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 on 13 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in response to Applicant’s argument that “to the extent Brierton can be said to disclose apertures formed in a lid, such apertures are static in nature and do not ‘selectively receive a weight,’ and the office does not identify any disclosure to establish that such apertures are even contemplated to ‘selectively receive a weight” (page 14, Remarks), the examiner notes that while Piramoon does not teach balancing apertures in a lid, Aoki teaches balancing apertures configured to selectively receive weights, and Brierton teaches balancing apertures formed in a lid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the balancing apertures of Aoki in the lid as taught by Brierton in order to provide an accessible and replaceable location for the balancing weights. It is not necessary that Brierton must alone teach balancing apertures formed in the lid and the apertures selectively receive a weight, and the concept of selectively receiving weight is taught by Aoki.
Regarding claim 9, in response to Applicant’s argument that “[a]s Kimura explains, pump rotor 4a includes a cylindrical – not annular – recessed portion 43, within which recessed portion ‘balance ring’ 5 is placed and attached to pump rotor 4a by bolts 70…Thus, to the extent Kimura may include a balance ring, the balance ring is not placed within an annular groove of an upper surface of the rotor. Furthermore, it can be seen from Kimura Fig. 3A above that ‘balance ring’ 5 is not ring-shaped, as the cross-sectional view in Kimura Fig. 3A makes clear that element 5 is cylindrical, not ring-shaped – if element 5 were ring-shaped or toroidal, then the cross-sectional view of Kimura Fig. 3A would show empty space within element 5, and Kimura Fig. 3A shows no such space” (page 16-17, Remarks), the examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, Kimura teaches a balance ring positioned in an annular recessed region of a rotor body. The term “balance ring” encompasses ring-like or collar-like portions of the balancing members (see annotated Fig. 3A below). The fact that a particular cross-sectional view does not explicitly show an internal void does not preclude the structure from being ring-shaped under reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, the recessed portion 43 can be considered annular since there is a center void (see annotated Fig. 3A below). Furthermore, changes in shape between the prior art and the claimed invention is considered a matter of obvious design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP § 2144. In this case, without evidence to indicate that an annular shape of the first groove and a ring shape of the balance ring are critical, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the structure of the first groove and balance element to any desired shape, including that of an annular or ring shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 28 July 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 17-28 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 17, the phrase “critical mode” is indefinite, because it is unclear what is the difference between a critical speed and a critical mode or what is the relationship between them. It is also unclear what is the difference between “a critical speed” in line 7 and “a first critical speed” in line 13, and between “a test speed” in line 8 and “a first test speed 13”. Additionally, said claim recites “correcting the imbalance of the rotor at the first test speed” and “correcting the imbalance of the rotor at the second test speed”, but does not specify to what extent of correction is required to satisfy this limitation, e.g., a complete elimination of the imbalance, a partial reduction in imbalance, or simply an attempt to rebalance. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear with respect to when the step of “correcting” is finished. Claims 18-28 are rejected for the same reason due to their dependency upon said claim.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear if “a first test speed” in line 3 refers to the same first test speed previously recited in claim 17, upon which said claim depends, or to a different speed.
Regarding claim 24, it is unclear if “a second test speed” in line 2 refers to the same second test speed previously recited in claim 17, upon which said claim depends, or to a different speed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of the claim amendments and Applicant remarks filed on 13 October 2025, the rejection of claims 17-28 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0216622) in view of Aoki (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0001505), and further in view of Brierton (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0086752).
Regarding claim 1, Piramoon discloses a rotor for use in a centrifuge, comprising a rotor body including an axis of rotation (rotor assembly 2a; Fig. 7B); a plurality of circumferentially spaced tubular cavities each having an open end configured to receive a sample container (wells 20, Fig. 7B), and a lid supported by the rotor body and configured to overlie the open ends of the tubular cavities when the lid is positioned on the rotor body (lid 70a, Fig. 7B and 7C), but does not disclose a plurality of balancing apertures formed in the lid and arranged circumferentially around the axis of rotation, each of the balancing apertures being configured to selectively receive a weight.
Aoki discloses a rotor (rotor 14; Fig. 4) including a plurality of balancing apertures (first and second holes 143, 144; Fig. 4) arranged circumferentially around an axis of rotation, each balancing aperture being configured to selectively receive a weight (first test weight 91, first correction weight 92, second test weight 93, second correction weight 84; see annotated Fig. 4 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 rotor of Piramoon with the plurality of balancing apertures taught by Aoki for the purpose of correcting an imbalance in the rotation unit (paras. [0090]-[0122] of Aoki).
PNG
media_image2.png
702
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of Piramoon and Aoki does not disclose that the plurality of balancing apertures are formed in the lid.
Brierton discloses a lid for a centrifuge rotor that includes balancing apertures formed in the lid (lid 40 including open sections 62, see annotated Fig. 8 below; “the configuration of the lid 40 (particularly the arrangement of the closed and open sections) may be modified to customize the weight distribution of the lid 40, para. [0037]). 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 lid of Piramoon, as taught by Brierton, to include circumferentially arranged balancing apertures, and to configure those apertures to selectively receive balancing weights as taught by Aoki, in order to allow adjustment of the lid’s mass distribution and aid in balancing the rotor during rotation (para. [0037], Brierton).
PNG
media_image3.png
491
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses at least one weight (first test weight 91, first correction weight 92, second test weight 93, second correction weight 84; Fig. 4, Aoki) received by at least one of the balancing apertures (first and second holes 143, 144; see annotated Fig. 4, Aoki).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses wherein the at least one weight is a screw including a threaded outer surface, and each of the balancing apertures includes a threaded inner surface configured to threadedly engage the at least one weight (para. [0073], Aoki).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses wherein each balancing aperture (first and second holes 143, 144; Fig. 4, Aoki) is the same radial distance from the axis of rotation (rotational axis L) as the other balancing apertures (see annotated Fig. 4, Aoki).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses wherein each balancing aperture (first and second holes 143, 144; Fig. 4, Aoki) is spaced the same angular distance from each angularly adjacent balancing aperture (the balancing apertures are formed at intervals along the circumferential direction on one end face, para. [0073], Aoki).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses wherein the balancing apertures (first and second holes 143, 144; Fig. 4, Aoki) are coplanar (first holes 143 are formed on one end face 14A, and therefore the first holes are coplanar with one another, and second holes 144 are formed on the other end face 14B, which means the second holes are coplanar with one another; para. [0073], Aoki).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses wherein the rotor body is constructed of a polymer composite, a carbon fiber material, or both the polymer composite and the carbon fiber material (para. [0043], Piramoon).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon in view of Aoki, and further in view of Brierton, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP 2009284713 (Shinya et al., hereinafter Shinya).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton discloses wherein the lid (70a; Fig. 7B, Piramoon) includes a top surface and a bottom surface opposite the top surface (see e.g., Fig. 7B, Piramoon), but does not disclose the balancing apertures are formed in one of the top surface or the bottom surface
Shinya discloses balancing apertures (notch; page 13 line 20 of machine translation) formed in one of the top surface or the bottom surface (page 13 line 20 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 rotor of the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Brierton with the balancing apertures of Shinya for the purpose of forming a notch instead of a through hole for the purpose of balance adjusting (page 13 line 20 of machine translation, Shinya).
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon in view of Aoki, and further in view of TW 201807317 (Kimura).
Regarding claim 9, Piramoon discloses a rotor, comprising a rotor body including an axis of rotation (rotor assembly 2a; Fig. 7B); wherein the rotor body further includes an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface (see Fig. 7B), but does not disclose the upper surface including a first annular groove; a balance ring positioned in the first annular groove and including a balance ring upper surface; and a plurality of balancing apertures arranged circumferentially around the axis of rotation and formed in the upper surface of the balance ring, each of the balancing apertures being configured to selectively receive a weight.
Aoki discloses a plurality of balancing apertures (first and second holes 143, 144; Fig. 4) arranged circumferentially around an axis of rotation and formed in the upper surface (corresponding to the end face) of the balance ring (annular rotor 14, Fig. 4), each balancing aperture being configured to selectively receive a weight (first test weight 91, first correction weight 92, second test weight 93, second correction weight 84; see annotated Fig. 4 above). 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 of Piramoon with the plurality of balancing apertures taught by Aoki for the purpose of correcting an imbalance in the rotation unit (paras. [0090]-[0122] of Aoki).
The combination of Piramoon and Aoki does not disclose the rotor upper surface including a first annular groove; a balance ring positioned in the first annular groove and including a balance ring upper surface.
Kimura discloses wherein the rotor body (pump rotor 4a, Fig. 3A) further includes an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface, the upper surface including a first annular groove (see annotated Fig. 3A below), and further comprising: a balance ring positioned in the first annular groove and including a balance ring upper surface, wherein the balance apertures are formed in the upper surface of the balance ring (correction portions 504 is cut off to reduce the unbalance amount, see annotated Fig. 3A below; page 3 lines 38-42 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 rotor of the combination of Piramoon and Aoki with the balance ring taught by Kimura for the purpose of balancing the rotor (page 3 lines 38-42 of machine translation, Kimura).
PNG
media_image4.png
357
497
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Kimura discloses wherein the first annular groove includes a shoulder, and the balance ring includes a balance ring flange that projects radially inward to engage the shoulder (see annotated Fig. 10C below, Kimura).
PNG
media_image5.png
425
471
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Piramoon discloses wherein the rotor body (10; Fig. 2, Piramoon) includes a circumferential sidewall, and further comprising a reinforcement (reinforcement material 44; Fig. 2, Piramoon) that extends around the circumferential sidewall.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon in view of Aoki, and further in view of Kimura, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Piramoon (U.S. Patent No. 8323169, herein after Piramoon ‘169).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Kimura does not disclose wherein the circumferential sidewall includes a circumferential recess, and the reinforcement conforms to the circumferential recess.
Piramoon ‘169 discloses wherein the circumferential sidewall includes a circumferential recess, and the reinforcement (18; Fig. 2) conforms to the circumferential recess (see annotated Fig. 2 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 rotor of the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Kimura with the reinforcement of Piramoon ‘169 for the purpose of reinforcing the exterior of the rotor body (col. 2 lines 52-67, Piramoon ‘169).
PNG
media_image6.png
377
679
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon in view of Aoki, and further in view of Kimura, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Novotny (U.S. Patent No. 4,848182).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Kimura does not disclose wherein the balance ring is operatively coupled to the first annular groove by an adhesive, a shrink-fit, or both the adhesive and the shrink-fit.
Novotny discloses wherein the balance ring (18; Fig. 1) is operatively coupled to the first annular groove (annular groove of disk 12; Fig. 1) by a shrink-fit (col. 2 lines 12-17). 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 of the combination of Piramoon, Aoki, and Kimura with the shrink-fit balance ring taught by Novotny for the purpose of balancing rotors (col. 1 lines 11-13 of Novotny).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the other claimed structural elements, a drive hub mounted within the elongated bore and including a cylindrical shaft that projects upwardly through the elongated bore, the cylindrical shaft including an upper portion having a threaded outer surface; a slid screw including a lower bore having a threaded inner surface configured to threadedly engage the threaded outer surface of the drive hub, and a lid screw flange that extends radially outward from a lower end of the lid screw; a lid including a wall portion extending radially outward and having a lower surface with a second annular groove; and an elastic member positioned within the second annular groove that is compressed against the balance ring upper surface in response to threaded engagement of the lid screw with the drive hub, and the prior art also fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the reinforcement extends around and above the circumferential sidewall of the rotor body to define a channel with the first annular groove, and the balance ring is positioned in the channel.
Claim 17 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 steps of determining a plurality of critical modes in which the rotor may be imbalanced, spinning the rotor in the centrifuge at a first test speed that is a fraction of a first critical speed at which the centrifuge enters a first determined critical mode, correcting the imbalance of the rotor at the first test speed, spinning the rotor in the centrifuge at a second test speed that is a fraction of a second critical speed higher than the first critical speed, and correcting the imbalance of the rotor at the second test speed.
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