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 argument, filed 2 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, that “sealer 122 is positioned between the lid and the upstanding annular lip, not ‘between [the] lid and [the] annular containment lip to form a seal between the lid and the rotor body” (page 11, Remarks), is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “(1) paragraph [0048] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0294112 teaches that the annular disk of Applicant’s configuration can expand to create a seal, and (2) Kugino’s paragraph [0035] teaches that the annular disk of that reference should be “hard enough to prevent displacement” resulting from compression. Thus, because a person of ordinary skill in the art who reads the foregoing disclosure in Kugino would not have any motivation to modify Kugino to arrive at Applicant’s configurations,” (page 12, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if Applicant’s annular disk expands under compression to form a seal, it would still have been desirable for the annular disk to be sufficiently hard to resist displacement so that the sealing engagement is maintained. Kugino teaches a gasket form that resists displacement during compression. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the gasket configuration taught by Kugino in order to provide a more stable seal. Furthermore, the claim does not require any particular degree of hardness or elastic expansion of the annular disk. Therefore, even if Applicant’s specification describes one way the claimed gasket may function in use, that does not distinguish over the prior art combination where the same general gasket structure as Kugino would have been predictably usable as a sealing member.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kugino is non-analogous art, the examiner respectively disagrees. Although Kugino is a different device from a rotor assembly, Kugino is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting an appropriate gasket structure for sealing between opposing members while resisting displacement under compression (para. [0035], Kugino). Kugino is relied upon only for teaching a known structure of the gasket, not for the overall centrifuge rotor configuration.
The rejections over Piramoon in view of Kugino and other cited references of record are therefore still deemed valid and are maintained.
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), and further in view of Kugino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0177803).
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.
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).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, and Kugino 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_image2.png
642
1251
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, and Kugino discloses wherein the rotor body is a fixed-angle rotor body (Abstract, Fig. 3, Piramoon).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Piramoon, Schmidt, and Kugino 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, and Kugino discloses in combination, a centrifuge (para. [0001], Piramoon) and the rotor assembly of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 12-15 and 17-26 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 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; 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; 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, 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 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
Prosecution Insights