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 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The existing prior art applied below is deemed to render the pending claims obvious as expressed in the rejections.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant argues that “[b]y separating the upper and lower mesh volumes as done in the instant invention and as claimed, the ability to tune the damping response independently exists for both downward motion (e.g., impact, settling, shock absorption) and for upward motion (e.g., rebound, overshoot, oscillation control). Each volume can contain a different wire mesh material” (pages 13-14, Remarks). The examiner points out that Applicant’s arguments rely on unclaimed features, such as independent tuning, different materials, and distinct mesh volumes. Patentability is determined by the claim language, and the claims do not require such features. It is well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982). Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. Limitations not found in the language of a claim cannot be read into the claim. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 7 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Nor is it permissible to inject into claims limitations referred to in the prosecution history. Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs, Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Applicant argues that “D2 and D1 are drastically different from one another and it is not known how the Examiner is using the coil springs (12) and the flexible belts (13) of D2 in D1 to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, to functionally equate the claims of the invention of the instant application and D1 in view of D2 is not believed to be possible and/or practical. The Examiner’s statement regarding substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as a sufficient rationale for obviousness is not understood, and clarification is respectfully requested” (page 14, Remarks). The examiner notes that Blum (D1) was already applied for the centrifuge and metal mesh damping element, and Mizuyoshi (D2) was relied upon to teach multiple bearings/damping elements comprising a spring axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using known metal mesh vibration isolators of Blum at multiple bearing support locations as taught by Mizuyoshi would distribute loads and further improve vibration suppression. See further explanation in the rejections below.
Applicant’s discussion of nonlinear vibration equations (page 16, Remarks) does not demonstrate that the claimed structural arrangement differs from the applied prior art, nor does it establish unexpected results. The complexity of the field does not render the substitution of known vibration isolation structures non-obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant’s “ring vs. cylinder” distinction (page 16, Remarks) is not persuasive because “cylindrical” reasonably reads on an annular/hollow cylinder form of the resilient coupling ring 28 (i.e., a ring having a cylindrical geometry).
Regarding claim 26, Applicant states that “the resilient coupling ring 24 is one piece and, due to its geometry, is in compression and tension at the same time” (page 17, Remarks). The examiner notes that, under BRI, a single annular wire mesh having two compressive regions separated by a plate satisfies the limitation that “two metal cushions together form a damping element” and counteract opposite deflections.
Regarding claim 30, Applicant argues that “[t]he Examiner goes to great length to find rubber-metal elements in D5” and that it is unclear what teachings of Eberle is being relied upon. Applicant further asserts that KSR requires a more meaningful explanation of how the references are combined. These arguments are not persuasive. The previous Office action relied upon Eberle for the specific teaching that a damping element in a centrifuge suspension system may comprise a rubber-metal element. Eberle discloses rubber-metal elements 36 (e.g., page 4 line 36 of the machine translation) used in a centrifuge bearing support arrangement to counteract imbalances (page 2 line 13, machine translation). The rejection relied upon Eberle solely for the teaching that a damping element in a centrifuge may comprise both metal and natural rubber. The combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, Römer, and Eberle therefore teaches both types of damping materials within a centrifuge environment. The modification does not require any complex redesign or impermissible hindsight reconstruction. It merely involves the predictable use of known vibration damping materials within a centrifuge suspension system. Substituting or incorporating one known damping material (natural rubber) in place of or in addition to another known damping material (metal mesh) constitutes the use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Applicant asserts that KSR requires a more detailed explanation of how the references would be combined. However, KSR does not require a detailed design analysis. KSR requires that the Examiner articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. In this case, both Blum and Eberle relate to vibration damping in centrifuge suspension systems, and both address the same problem of isolating vibration and counteracting imbalance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting different known damping materials for different damping elements within the same suspension system is a routine design choice.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 October 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of in the specification.
The title of the invention is 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 29 and 30 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 29, the phrase “to dampen said bearings to the maximum extent possible” renders the claim indefinite because it is a relative and subjective term lacking objective boundaries. The claim does not define what constitutes the “maximum extent possible”, nor does it recite any measurable parameter by which such a maximum could be determined. The specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the degree required to satisfy this limitation. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Additionally, the limitation that certain damping elements “perform a first function to absorb weight force” while others “function to dampen said bearings” fails to clearly define structural distinctions between the respective damping elements. The claim does not recite what structural characteristics differentiate the elements that absorb weight force from those that provide damping, nor does it specify how such elements are configured differently. Merely reciting intended functional results without corresponding structural limitations does not provide clear claim boundaries.
Furthermore, it is unclear if “said damping elements” in line 2 of said claim refer to the first damping element previously recited in claim 24 or to different damping elements. Similarly, it is unclear if “damping elements of bearings” in line 5 of said claim refers to the first damping element previously recited in claim 24 or to different damping elements. Claim 30 is rejected for the same reason due to its 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 24-27, 33, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (U.S. Patent No. 2,827,229) in view of Mizuyoshi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,079,882).
Regarding claim 24, Blum discloses a centrifuge (Fig. 1), in particular a laboratory centrifuge, comprising a) a rotor (43, Fig. 1) for receiving containers (“test tubes”, col. 4 lines 6-9) with material to be centrifuged, b) a drive shaft (30, Fig. 1) on which the rotor is mounted, c) a motor (23, Fig. 1) which drives the rotor via said drive shaft, d) a bearing unit (collar 25, screw bolts 26, mounting ring 27, resilient coupling ring 28, and bearing housing 29, Fig. 2) includes a bearing, said bearing includes a first damping element (resilient coupling ring 28, Fig. 2) comprising a spring axis (the resilient coupling ring 28 deforms elastically along the longitudinal axis), said bearing unit supports said motor (Fig. 2), a carrier element (ring 21 and legs 22, Fig. 1) supports said bearing unit, said first damping element (resilient coupling ring 28, Fig. 2) of said bearing is formed completely from metal and as a metal cushion comprising a wire knit having elastic properties (“metal mesh vibration absorbing packing”, col. 2 lines 51-52), said bearing unit includes a plate (mount ring 27, Fig. 3), but does not disclose more than one bearing, each of said bearings include a first damping element, said bearings of said bearing unit supports and suspends said motor spaced apart from and with respect to said carrier element, said at least one wire knit damping element of one of said bearings resides between said carrier element and said plate suspending said bearing unit and said motor spaced apart from, and with respect to, said carrier element.
Mizuyoshi discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge comprising a motor (5, Fig. 1) and rotor (inner housing 4, Fig. 1) supported by multiple bearings, comprising a bearing unit includes bearings, each of said bearings include a first damping element (coil springs 12 and flexible belt 13, Fig. 1), and each of said first damping elements include a spring axis, a carrier element (supporting plate 11, Fig. 1) supports said bearing unit, said bearings of said bearing unit supports and suspend said motor spaced apart from and with respect to said carrier element (Fig. 1; a plurality of coil springs 12 are interposed between a flange 10 integral with a bracket of the motor 5 and a stationary supporting plate 11 attached to the inner side wall of the outer casing 1 so that the motor is resiliently supported by the coil spring 12, col. 2 lines 24-28), said at least one wire knit damping element (corresponds to coil springs 12, Fig. 1) of one of said bearings resides between said carrier element (supporting plate 11, Fig. 1) and said plate (flange 10, Fig. 1) suspending said bearing unit and said motor spaced apart from, and with respect to, said carrier element (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 24-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifuge of Blum to include multiple bearings as taught by Mizuyoshi and to arrange the known wire knit damping element of Blum in a suspension configuration between a carrier element and a plate supporting the bearing unit and motor, as taught by Mizuyoshi, for the purpose of distributing loads more evenly, and providing a vibration-isolating apparatus for a centrifuge in which even if the rotary body is in an unbalanced condition, in weight, it will not generate large vibrations at the resonance point (col. 1 lines 43-48, Mizuyoshi).
Blum teaches the use of a wire knit metal cushion as a damping element in a centrifuge bearing arrangement. Mizuyoshi teaches positioning multiple damping elements between a support structure and a motor/bearing mounting plate to suspend the rotating assembly spaced apart from the support. Combining these teachings merely places Blum’s known wire knit damping element in the known suspension locations taught by Mizuyoshi.
Substituting one known damping element (wire knit metal cushion of Blum) for another known elastic suspension element (coil springs 12 and flexible belt 13 of Mizuyoshi) in the same suspension locations represents the predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The modification would have yielded no more than the expected result of suspending the motor and bearing unit relative to the carrier element using a known vibration isolating structure.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi discloses the metal cushion is (resilient coupling ring 28, Fig. 2, Blum) is cylindrical in shape.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi discloses two metal cushions together form a damping element, wherein the first metal cushion (upper portion of resilient coupling ring 28 above the mounting ring 27, Fig. 1, Blum) counteracts a deflection of the rotor in a first direction and the second metal cushion (lower portion of resilient coupling ring 28 below the mounting ring 27, Fig. 1, Blum) counteracts a deflection of the rotor in a second, opposite, direction.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi discloses the bearing unit comprises at least one bearing with a bearing plate (mounting ring 27, Fig. 1, Blum), wherein on one side of the bearing plate the first metal cushion (upper portion of resilient coupling ring 28 above the mounting ring 27, Fig. 1, Blum) is arranged and on the second side of the bearing plate the second metal cushion (lower portion of resilient coupling ring 28 below the mounting ring 27, Fig. 1, Blum) is arranged.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi discloses the centrifuge according to claim 24. Mizuyoshi further discloses at least one spring axis of a damping element is aligned in parallel to the drive shaft (damping element 12 and 13 spring axis parallel to shaft 6, Fig. 1, Mizuyoshi). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the centrifuge of modified Blum with a damping element having a spring axis aligned parallel to the drive shaft, as taught by Mizuyoshi, for the purpose of providing a vibration-isolating apparatus for a centrifuge in which even if the rotary body is in an unbalanced condition, in weight, it will not generate large vibrations at the resonance point (col. 1 lines 43-48, Mizuyoshi).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi discloses said second direction of said rotor deflection corresponds to said direction opposite to said first direction of the deflection of said rotor (in Blum, the upper portion of resilient coupling ring 28 is compressed in response to deflection in one direction and the lower portion of the resilient coupling ring 28 is compressed in response to deflection in the opposite direction. Accordingly, the deflection resisted by the upper portion necessarily corresponds to a direction opposite to the deflection resisted by the lower portion).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, as applied to claim 27, and further in view of (DE 102017122571 (Schmidt).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi does not disclose a guide pin extends through the first metal cushion which rests directly or indirectly against the bearing plate, the bearing plate and the second metal cushion which rests directly or indirectly against the bearing plate and the carrier element, wherein the guide pin is fixedly connected to the carrier element on one side and has a head on the other side which bears indirectly or directly against the first metal cushion, the bearing plate and the second metal cushion are freely movable relative to the guide pin.
Schmidt discloses analogous art related to damping elements, characterized in that a guide pin (screw 42, Fig. 10) extends through the first metal cushion (damping element 26 or all-metal cushion 28, Fig. 10 and 11) which rests directly or indirectly against the bearing plate (flange 10 of first component, Fig. 10), the bearing plate and the second metal cushion (damping element 26’ or all-metal cushion 28, Fig. 10 and 11) which rests directly or indirectly against the bearing plate and the carrier element (second component 48, Fig. 10), wherein the guide pin is fixedly connected to the carrier element on one side and has a head (50, Fig. 10) on the other side which bears indirectly or directly against the first metal cushion, the bearing plate and the second metal cushion are freely movable relative to the guide pin (Fig. 10). 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 the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi with the guide pin as taught by Schmidt for the purpose of fixing a damping device to a component (Abstract, Schmidt).
Claims 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, as applied to claim 24, and further in view of GB 2234319 (Römer).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi does not explicitly disclose that said damping elements of bearings perform a first function to absorb weight force; and, damping elements of bearings function to dampen said bearings to the maximum extent possible.
Römer discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge suspension arrangement wherein different elements of the bearing support system are designed for different functional purposes. Specifically, Römer discloses damping elements of bearings (spring elements 25, Fig. 3) perform a first function to absorb weight force; and, damping elements of bearings (damping elements 26, Fig. 3) function to dampen said bearings to the maximum extent possible. 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 Blum and Mizuyoshi with the damping elements of different bearings as taught by Römer for the purpose of adapting individually to particular demands of the operation of the centrifuge which are determined by the mass to be damped, the operational speed of rotation, and the critical speed of rotation which results from the interaction of the mass and elasticity of the suspension (page 11 lines 12-23, Römer).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer discloses adjacent damping elements are equally spaced from one another in the circumferential direction relative to the drive axis (“spring elements 25, the damping elements 26 and the vibration dampers 27 are arranged at regular intervals around the periphery of the motor 22 and around a circle which is concentric in relation to the axis 23”, page 11 lines 3-7, Römer).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer discloses at least one spring axis of a damping element is aligned perpendicular to the drive shaft (spring elements 25 and damping elements 26 have spring axes perpendicular to the drive shaft 21, Fig. 3, Römer).
Regarding claim 34, the combination Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer teaches multiple bearings with damping elements, wherein at least some of the damping elements spring axes are aligned parallel to the drive shaft (vibration dampers 27, Fig. 3, Römer) and at least some of the damping elements spring axes are aligned perpendicular to the drive shaft (spring elements 25 and damping elements 26, Fig. 3, Römer), but does not disclose that the spring axes of half of the damping elements are aligned perpendicular to the drive shaft, and the spring axes of the other half of the damping elements are aligned in parallel to the drive shaft.
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 provided the arrangement of the combination Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer with an equal number of the damping elements oriented parallel and perpendicular to the drive shaft. Doing so would have been a matter of design choice or routine optimization to achieve uniform damping, since the combination Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer already discloses the use of both orientations. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe., 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 35, the combination Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer teaches multiple bearings with damping elements, wherein at least some of the damping elements spring axes are aligned parallel to the drive shaft (vibration dampers 27, Fig. 3, Römer) and at least some of the damping elements spring axes are aligned perpendicular to the drive shaft (spring elements 25 and damping elements 26, Fig. 3, Römer), but does not disclose that alternatingly the spring axes of the damping elements are aligned perpendicular to the drive shaft and the spring axes of the damping elements are aligned in parallel to the drive shaft.
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 arranged the perpendicular and parallel damping elements of the combination Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer in an alternating sequence. Doing so would have been a predictable variation of the arrangement of the damping elements of the combination Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer, since alternating the damping elements would provide uniform distribution of damping forces around the shaft, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as desirable. The examiner notes that there are a finite number of sequences to arrange the damping elements with different spring axes around the shaft and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, 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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, and further in view of Römer, as applied to claim 29, and further in view of WO 2015128296 (Eberle et al., hereinafter Eberle).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi and Römer discloses that one damping element (resilient coupling ring 28, Fig. 2, Blum) comprises at least one metal cushion (“metal mesh vibration absorbing packing”, col. 2 lines 51-52, Blum), and another damping element (damping elements 26 or spring elements 25, Römer), but does not disclose the other damping element comprises at least natural rubber.
Eberle discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, characterized in that the damping element comprises at least natural rubber (rubber-metal elements 36, page 4 line 36 of machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, in the centrifuge of the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Römer, one damping element comprising a metal cushion as taught by Blum and another damping element comprising natural rubber as taught by Eberle. Substituting one known vibration damping material for another known vibration damping material in the same mechanical environment represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to the established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The modification would have involved routine selection of damping materials to achieve desired vibration isolation results.
Claims 36, 37, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Sautter (U.S. Patent No. 4,061279).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi does not explicitly teach that the damping elements permit a maximum deflection in the region of the rotor of less than 2 mm, in particular of less than 1.5 mm; the damping elements permit a maximum deflection in the region of the damping element of less than 1 mm, in particular of less than 0.9 mm.
Sautter discloses analogous art related to damping vibrations in a high-speed rotating machinery, and that the damper rings 94 permit a certain maximum shaft deflection as limited by bolt holes (col. 12 lines 14-36). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the damping elements of Sautter to permit a maximum deflection of less than 2 mm, or less than 1.5 mm, as a matter of routine optimization of a known result-effective variable. Sautter teaches that the maximum shaft deflection and the deflection permitted by the damper rings are design parameters to be adjusted within the space limitations of the machine (col. 12 lines 14-36, Sautter). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the particular magnitude of allowable deflection is a result-effective variable that depends on machine geometry and vibration behavior, and would have optimized the values to minimize vibration forces and prevent contact with bolts. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 Blum and Mizuyoshi with maximum deflections as taught by Sautter for the purpose of damping radial vibrations and for damping whirl (Abstract, Sautter).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, modified Blum does not disclose a washer, in particular a metal washer, delimits the damping element in the direction of the spring axis on one side; the washer covers the entire damping element in the direction of the spring axis.
Sautter discloses a washer (98 and 102, Fig. 4), in particular a metal washer, delimits the damping element (damper ring 94, Fig. 4) in the direction of the spring axis on one side (Fig. 4). Sautter discloses that the washer partially covers the damping element (see e.g., Fig. 4). However, expanding the washer’s coverage of the damping element from partial to full would have been a matter of design choice, to achieve load distribution and protection of the damping element. 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 modified Blum with the washer as taught by Sautter for the purpose of resiliently maintaining the damping element in friction contact with the bearing and seal retainer (col. 8 line 66 – col. 9 line 1, Sautter).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Eberle.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi does not explicitly disclose that three damping elements are provided, the spring axis of each of which is aligned identically.
Eberle discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, characterized in that three damping elements are provided, the spring axis of each of which is aligned identically (“the bearing unit comprises a plurality of struts, preferably 3 to 21, which are connected to the damping elements, wherein the struts are placed and arranged so that they are concentrically aligned with the respective spring axis”, Abstract). 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 in the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi with three damping elements as taught by Eberle for the purpose of counteracting centrifuge imbalances (page 2 line 13 of machine translation, Eberle).
Claims 41, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Tokunaga et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0063873, hereinafter Tokunaga).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi does not explicitly disclose that the metal cushion is formed by a steel wire that contains chromium-nickel.
Tokunaga discloses analogous art related to a damping element for a rotating shaft, characterized in that the metal cushion (wire mesh damper 10, Fig. 1) is formed by a steel wire that contains chromium-nickel (para. [0048]). 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 in the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi with the damping element as taught by Tokunaga for the purpose of increasing a radial restoring force against the eccentricity of the rotating shaft to restore it to its axis position and a tangential damping force to reduce the whirling of the rotating shaft (para. [0025], Tokunaga).
Regarding claims 43 and 44, the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Tokunaga discloses a hollow cylindrical metal cushion disposed between a floating ring and a housing such that the inner peripheral surface of the damping member contacts the outer peripheral surface of the floating ring and the outer peripheral surface contacts the inner peripheral surface of the housing (para. [0025], Fig. 1, Tokunaga). Tokunaga further teaches that this configuration generates a radial restoring force to correct shaft eccentricity and a tangential damping force to reduce shaft whirling (para. [0025], Tokunaga), but does not explicitly teach that the outer diameter of the metal cushion is from 12 mm up to and including 50 mm, and an inner diameter of between 4 mm and 12 mm.
However, given the teaching of Tokunaga, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the dimensions of the metal cushion in the centrifuge of the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Tokunaga to be within the claimed ranges. Selecting a suitable range for the inner and outer diameters to achieve predicable damping performance and to fit within existing machine geometry is a matter of routine optimization. The present specification does not demonstrate any unexpected results or criticality associated with the claimed ranges. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi and further in view of Tokunaga, as applied to claim 41, and further in view of Thorn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,514,458, hereinafter Thorn).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Tokunaga does not explicitly teach that the steel wire is from 0.05 mm up to and including 0.5mm in diameter.
Thorn discloses analogous art related to metal cushion used for shock or vibration attenuation, characterized in that the steel wire is from 0.05 mm up to and including 0.5mm in diameter (0.0035 inch – 0.020 inch, i.e., 0.0889 mm – 0.508 mm, col. 5 lines 16-22). 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 in the combination of Blum, Mizuyoshi, and Tokunaga with the steel wire taught by Thorn for the purpose of its commercial availability, spring-like qualities and is substantially smooth-surfaced and free from stress risers (col. 5 lines 16-22, Thorn).
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Mizuyoshi, as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Ryu (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0267740).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi does not disclose that the damping coefficient k of the metal cushion is between 500 and 8,000 Ns/m for an excitation frequency of 1 Hz; between 300 and 5,000 Ns/m for an excitation frequency of 10 Hz; between 200 and 2,500 Ns/m for an excitation frequency of 20 Hz; between 80 and 1,200 Ns/m for an excitation frequency of 50 Hz; between 40 and 500 Ns/m for an excitation frequency of 100 Hz; the stiffness (c) of the metal is in a range of between 3 N/mm and 300 N/mm.
Ryu discloses analogous art related to metal mesh dampers, wherein the stiffness and damping coefficients of the dampers can be selectively varied and controlled by changing the metal mesh material, geometry, and mesh density depending upon the operating conditions encountered during shaft rotation (para. [0014]). Ryu further teaches that the metal mesh dampers provide maximum damping at lower frequency ranges, where rotor dynamic instability frequencies are significantly lower than the rotor synchronous frequency or shaft rotational frequency (para. [0014]). While Ryu does not explicitly disclose the exact numeric ranges in said claims, Ryu teaches that the stiffness and damping of the metal mesh dampers are adjustable by modifying material, geometry, and mesh density. The damping coefficient and stiffness values are therefore result-effective variables that are selected to produce the desired damping and restoring forces. Since Ryu teaches that these parameters can be adjusted to achieve predictable damping performance depending on operation conditions, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected values within the claimed ranges for the metal mesh dampers of Ryu as a routine design optimization. Furthermore, it is noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been further obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge in the combination of Blum and Mizuyoshi with metal mesh dampers having the properties taught by Ryu for the purpose of the ability of metal mesh dampers to handle extreme temperature differences since there is no variation in stiffness and damping due to temperature changes (para. [0014], Ryu).
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