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. Election/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-11, drawn to an apparatus , classified in B04B7/04 . II. Claim s 12-15 , drawn to a method , classified in B04B2011/046 . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case , the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus with a gripper, a speed monitoring instrument, a first light barrier, and a second light barrier. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the invention have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Gray Mitchell on 10 December 2025 a provisional election was made without t raverse to prosecute the invention of a centrifuge for separating compounds of a fluid , claim s 1-11 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings were received on 8 May 2023. 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 abstract of the disclosure is acceptable. The title of the invention is 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. Claim s 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,004,453, hereinafter Hayasaka ) in view of CN 109985734 ( Toedteberg et al., hereinafter Toedteberg ), further in view of Galasso et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,393,864, hereinafter Galasso) , and further in view of D E 102022125486 ( Barbisch et al., hereinafter Barbisch ) . Regarding claim 1, Hayasaka discloses a centrifuge (Fig. 2) for separating components of a fluid, comprising: a housing (side wall 14 and bottom plate 13, Fig. 2) surrounding a centrifugation chamber (rotor chamber 11, Fig. 2); a lid (top plate 15, Fig. 2) with a first opening (opening in top plate 15, Fig. 2); a rotor (12, Fig. 2); and a shutter ( cover 24, Fig. 2) which partly covers the lid (top plate 15, Fig. 2), wherein the shutter comprises a second opening (opening in cover 24, Fig. 2) which is arranged above the first opening of the lid; and a flap (door 18, Fig. 2) that is arranged above the first opening of the lid (top plate 15, Fig. 2) and below the second opening of the shutter (cover 24, Fig. 2), but does not disclose a printed circuit board, a plurality of container holders, a stepper motor for actuating a toggle lever which is connected to a rotatable flap. Toedteberg discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, comprising a printed circuit board (12, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of Hayasaka with the printed circuit board of Toedteberg for the purpose of controlling components on the centrifuge (Abstract , Toedteberg ). The combination of Hayasaka and Toedteberg does not teach a plurality of container holders. Galasso discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, comprising a rotor (10, Fig. 1) with a plurality of container holders ( bucket hanger members 18 , Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of Hayasaka and Toedteberg with the container holders of Galasso for the purpose of supporting swinging buckets ( col. 1 line 64 – col. 2 line 14 , Galasso ). The combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , and Galasso does not disclose a stepper motor for actuating a toggle lever which is connected to a rotatable flap. Barbisch discloses analogous art related to a closure mechanism, comprising stepper motor (page 3 lines 29-32 of machine translation) for actuating a toggle lever (17, Fig. 1) which is connected to a rotatable flap (14, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , and Galasso with the closure mechanism as taught by Barbisch for the purpose of keeping the flap closed with high pressure (page 3 lines 2-8, Barbisch ). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch discloses wherein the plurality of container holders (bucket hanger members 18, Fig. 1, Galasso) is radially arranged around a central axis of rotation (vertical axis 11, Fig. 1, Galasso). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch discloses the plurality of container holders (bucket-hanger members 18, Fig. 1 , Galasso ) is movably and spring-loaded (via springs 22, Fig. 3 and 4 , Galasso ) connected to the rotor (10, Fig. 1 , Galasso ) allowing each container holder to swing-out due to centrifugal forces ( col. 2 lines 25-34, Galasso). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch discloses wherein the toggle lever comprises a first lever (20, Fig. 2, Barbisch ) which is connected on one side to the stepper motor (26, Fig. 2, Barbisch ) and on the other side through a joint-pin (joint 21, Fig. 2, Barbisch ) to a second lever (19, Fig. 2, Barbisch ) which is connected to the flap (14, Fig. 2, Barbisch ). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch discloses wherein the shutter ( glass front 5, Fig. 6 , Barbisch ) comprises a first light barrier (sensor 35, Fig. 6, “light barrier”, page 6 lines 13-14, Barb i sch ) arranged at the stepper motor (26, Fig. 2, Barbisch ) and a second light barrier (optical sensor 9, Fig. 6, “light barrier”, page 6 lines 13-14, Barbisch ) arranged at the flap (14, Fig. 6 , Barbisch ) . Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch discloses wherein the first lever (20, Fig. 2, Barbisch ) comprises a recess (see annotated partial Fig. 6 below , Barbisch ). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch does not explicitly disclose wherein the end of the first lever which is connected to the stepper motor is configured to interrupt the first light barrier and the flap is configured to interrupt the second light barrier. However, given the teachings of Barbisch as discussed above for claims 6 and 7 , such as the presence of first and second light barriers 35 and 9 to detect objects in the area around the insertion opening ( page 5 line 32 – page 6 line 28, page 9 lines 10-18 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 configured the optical sensors / light barriers to be interrupted by the moving components of the closure mechanism (in this case , the first lever and the flap) . With the light barriers detecting the positions of the first lever and the flap, the open/close state of the flap can be reliably and accurately monitored. Such a modification constitutes applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results , which supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) , Example D. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka in view of Toedteberg , further in view of G a lasso, and further in view of Barbisch , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 1298785 ( Desbiolles et al., hereinafter Desbiolles ). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch does not disclose the rotor is connected to an EC motor with encoder. Desbiolles discloses analogous art related to electronically commutated motor control method, where an EC motor (“switching motor electronics, or brushless motor” , page 1 line 12 of machine translation ) with encoder can be used to control the rotation of a mechanical organ in a large number of applications (page 1 line 12 – page 2 line 4 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 centrifuge of the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch with the motor and encoder taught by Desbiolles for the purpose of obtaining a torque that is optimal and equal to a set point with the fewest modulations possible (page 1 line 12 – page 2 line 4 of machine translation, Desbiolles ). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka in view of Toedteberg , further in view of G a lasso, and further in view of Barbisch , as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of CN 102802804 (Sharon et al., hereinafter Sharon). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch does not disclose wherein the spring-loaded connection of the plurality of container holders to the rotor comprises an axis and a spring surrounding said axis of swing-out of each container holder. Sharon discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the spring-loaded connection comprises an axis (movable shaft 203, Fig. 10A) and a spring (202, Fig. 10A) surrounding said axis of swing-out . 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 Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch with the spring-loaded connection axis and spring as taught by Sharon for the purpose of using the centrifugal speed to release compressed energy rotating the swing arms from torsion spring in a n automatic starting device of a separator device (para. [ 0042] , [0045]-[0048], Sharon). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka in view of Toedteberg , further in view of Galasso, and further in view of Barbisch , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leach et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,992,725 , hereinafter Leach ). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch does not disclose comprising on the outside of the housing a counterweight container holder for accommodating a counterweight container. Leach discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, comprising on the outside of the housing (housing of centrifuge 23, Fig. 3) a counterweight container holder (kit 320, Fig. 20) for accommodating a counterweight container (322, Fig. 20). 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 Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch with the counterweight container holder taught by Leach for the purpose of efficiency of use of the system by providing the various components in a kit (col. 11 lines 11-20, Leach). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka in view of Toedteberg , further in view of Galasso, and further in view of Barbisch , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Due et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,322,926 , hereinafter Due ). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch does not disclose wherein the rotor comprises a stop for limiting the swing-out angle of the plurality of container holders. Due discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge with swingable sample holder, wherein the rotor comprises a stop (swing stop pin 18, Fig. 1) for limiting the swing-out angle of the plurality of container holders (sample holder 6, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of Hayasaka , Toedteberg , Galasso, and Barbisch with the stop as taught by Due for the purpose of limiting the extent of swing of the sample holder (col. 6 lines 1-3, Due). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0496 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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