ROTOR WITH IMPROVED SPILL CONTROL

NON-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 July 2026, with respect to claim 1 has 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. Claims 8 and 9 are also rejected in view of the newly discovered references to Nomoto and Carson in the rejections below. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of species filed 16 July 2025 has been acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant elected Species A as the species to be examined. Upon review, the examiner determines as follows: Claims 1-16 are generic and therefore drawn to all species, including elected Species A. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are examined. Claims 17-26 are drawn specifically to elected Species A. Accordingly, claims 17-26 are examined. Claims 27-36 are not commensurate in scope with elected Species A and instead are drawn to a nonelected species. Therefore, claims 27-36 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 27 CFR 1.142(b). 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 9 June 2022. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0193614) in view of Schmidt et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,843,045), further in view of Kugino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0177803), and further in view of JP 2009291691 (Nemoto). Regarding claim 1, Piramoon discloses a rotor assembly (10, Fig. 3), comprising: a rotor body (12, Fig. 3) having a plurality of rotor wells (tubular cavity 24, Fig. 3) spaced circumferentially about a rotational axis of the rotor body, each of the plurality of rotor wells having an open end (34, Fig. 3) formed in an upper surface of the rotor body and being configured to receive a sample container (“sample container”, para. [0039]) therein, an upstanding annular lip (upper reinforcement portion 26a, see annotated partial Fig. 3) that extends in an axial direction above the upper surface of the rotor body to define an open end of the rotor body, the upstanding annular lip defining an annular containment groove (annular liquid containment groove 27, Fig. 3) configured to capture and retain material leaked from at least one sample container received within at least one of the plurality of rotor wells during rotation of the rotor assembly, and an annular containment lip (see annotated partial Fig. 3) that extends radially inward toward the rotational axis of the rotor body to form a continuous extension of the annular containment groove, and a lid (14, Fig. 3) selectively attached to the open end of the rotor body to form a cavity between the upper surface (top wall 22, Fig. 3) of the rotor body and an underside of the lid, the lid having a first undercut channel (defined by the groove for sealing element 122, Fig. 3) that extends radially inward from a periphery of the lid and circumferentially about the lid that is configured to receive a portion of a first sealing gasket (sealing element 122, Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid is supported above the upper surface of the rotor body by the annular containment lip such that the first sealing gasket is positioned between the lid and the annular containment lip to form a seal between the lid and the rotor body, and the first sealing gasket is an annular disk having generally planar and parallel upper and lower surfaces, and wherein a radially inward end of the annular containment lip is flush with the underside of the lid to form a smooth transition between the underside of the lid and the annular containment groove. PNG media_image1.png 558 1142 media_image1.png Greyscale Schmidt discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge rotor, wherein the lid (cover member 2, Fig. 1) is supported above the upper surface of the rotor body by the annular containment lip (47, Fig. 1) such that the first sealing gasket (o-ring seal 48, Fig. 1) is positioned between the lid and the annular containment lip to form a seal between the lid and the rotor body. 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 rotor assembly of Piramoon with the first sealing gasket arrangement as taught by Schmidt so that the hydraulic pressure exerted against the inner surface of the cover/lid is less than would normally be present if there were no resilient lip or seal abutting the lower surface of the cover (col. 5 lines 17-31, Schmidt). The combination of Piramoon and Schmidt does not disclose an annular disk having generally planar and parallel upper and lower surfaces. Kugino discloses analogous art related to a seal structure, comprising a first sealing gasket that comprises an annular disk (gasket 5, Fig. 3) having generally planar and parallel upper and lower surfaces. 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 the combination of Piramoon and Schmidt with the annular disk as taught by Kugino for the purpose of preventing the elastic member from being displaced radially outward when compressing the elastic member (para. [0035]). Furthermore, replacing the sealing element of Piramoon with the annular disk gasket of Kugino is no more than the simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, and Kugino does not disclose wherein a radially inward end of the annular containment lip is flush with the underside of the lid to form a smooth transition between the underside of the lid and the annular containment groove. Nemoto discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge rotor (1, Fig. 1) comprising a rotor body (3, Fig. 1) and a lid (2, Fig. 1) covering the opening of the rotor body, wherein a radially inward end of the annular containment lip (see annotated partial Fig. 1 below) is flush with the underside (lower surface 2e) of the lid to from a smooth transition between the underside of the lid and the annular containment groove. 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/lip interface of the rotor assembly of the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, and Kugino so that a radially inward end of the annular containment lip is flush with the underside of the lid, as taught by Nemoto, for the purpose of providing a continuous, closely mating, step-free surface at the peripheral lid to rotor body joint, thereby helping maintain the airtight seal of the sample chamber that Nemoto identifies as important (Abstract, Nemoto). PNG media_image2.png 254 619 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, and Nemoto discloses wherein the lid comprises an upper peripheral portion, a middle peripheral portion, and a lower peripheral portion, the middle peripheral portion and the lower peripheral portion being separated from each other by the first undercut channel (see annotated partial Fig. 3 of Kugino below). PNG media_image3.png 642 1251 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, and Nemoto discloses wherein the rotor body is a fixed-angle rotor body (Abstract, Fig. 3, Piramoon). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, and Nemoto discloses wherein the lid comprises a second undercut channel, an upper peripheral portion, a middle peripheral portion, and a lower peripheral portion, the upper peripheral portion and the middle peripheral portion being separated from each other by the second undercut channel (see annotated Fig. 3 of Kugino). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, Nemoto discloses in combination, a centrifuge (para. [0001], Piramoon) and the rotor assembly of claim 1. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piramoon in view of Schmidt, further in view of Kugino, further in view of Nemoto, and further in view of Carson (U.S. Patent No. 5,562,554). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, and Nemoto discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1, wherein the annular containment lip includes a chamfered surface that extends between a radially inward terminal wall of the annular containment lip and the annular containment groove. Nemoto shows an inclined surface (see annotated partial Fig. 1 below) at the radially inward end of the lip. PNG media_image4.png 292 368 media_image4.png Greyscale To the extent Nemoto’s drawing is not considered to clearly show the chamfered surface, it would have been obvious to provide one. Carson teaches that the radially inner edge of the rotor rim “may be chamfered” (inner edge 38I, chamfer 38C, 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 modified the lid/lip interface of the rotor assembly of the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, and Nemoto with the chamfered surface taught by Carson for the purpose of relieving the radially inward portion of the rim so the edge does not impose a lifting force on the cover that would break contact between the seal ring and the surface of the rim, causing the sealed integrity of the rotor to be broken (col. 5 lines 49-61, Carson). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, Kugino, Nemoto, and Carson discloses wherein a radially inward end of the chamfered surface is flush with the underside of the lid to form a smooth transition between the underside of the lid and the annular containment groove (annotated Fig. 1 of Nemoto, the radially inward end of the inclined surface meets the lower surface 2e of the cover). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7 and 12-15 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 wherein the lid’s upper peripheral portion defines a first outer diameter of the lid, the middle peripheral portion defines a second outer diameter of the lid that is less than the first outer diameter, and the lower peripheral portion defines a third outer diameter of the lid that is less than the second outer diameter. Claims 17-26 are allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the other claimed structural elements, the lid comprising a second undercut channel that extends radially inward from a periphery of the lid and circumferentially about the lid that is configured to receive a portion of a second sealing gasket therein, wherein the lid is supported above the upper surface of the rotor body by the annular containment lip such that the first sealing gasket is positioned between the lid and the annular containment lip to form a first seal between the lid and the rotor body and the second sealing gasket is positioned between the lid and the inner wall to form a second seal between the lid and the rotor body. Piramoon teaches a first undercut channel, but does not disclose a second undercut channel. Kugino teaches a first and second undercut channel, but they do not extend radially inward, and therefore the upper peripheral portion, middle peripheral portion, and lower peripheral portion do not define the outer diameters of the lid. Conclusion 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