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 with respect to claims 1-11 have 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.
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.
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, 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 203711167 (Xu et al., hereinafter Xu), further 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 DE 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); a flap (door 18, Fig. 2) arranged above the first opening (opening in top plate 15, Fig. 2) and below a second opening (top opening of cover 24, Fig. 2), a shutter (cover 24, Fig. 2) which partly covers the lid (top plate 15, Fig. 2), wherein the shutter comprises: the second opening (opening in cover 24, Fig. 2) which is arranged above the first opening of the lid and is opened and closed by the flap, but does not disclose a flap that is rotatable, a printed circuit board, a plurality of container holders, a stepper motor for actuating a toggle lever which is connected to a rotatable flap.
Xu discloses analogous art related to a door cover device for centrifuge, comprising a rotatable flap (door cover 2, “door cover 2 through a bearing 3 mounted on the shaft 11 fixing door cover 1”, “motor 5 through the pinion 6 and the door cover 2 engaged with the door cover 2 rotate”, para. [0014] of machine translation, 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 modified Hayasaka’s door 18 to be rotatably, rather than slidably, actuated as taught by Xu for the purpose of enabling motor-driven, automatic actuation of the flap in place of Hayasaka’s manual sliding mechanism (para. [0010] of machine translation, Xu).
The combination of Hayasaka and Xu does not disclose a printed circuit board.
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 the combination of Hayasaka and Xu with the printed circuit board of Toedteberg for the purpose of controlling components on the centrifuge (Abstract, Toedteberg).
The combination of Hayasaka, Xu, 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, Xu, 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, Xu, Toedteberg, and Galasso does not disclose a stepper motor for actuating a toggle lever which is connected to the 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 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, Xu, Toedteberg, and Galasso with the stepper motor and toggle lever arrangement as taught by Barbisch for the purpose of reliably locking the flap even under heavy loads from the outside (page 3 lines 2-8 and 36-38, Barbisch). Although Barbisch is not from the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the instant inventor, as the instant specification sates that the toggle lever mechanism achieves “a self-locking locking effect is achieved. This prevents the flap 21 from opening if vibrations may occur or from being opened manually when the centrifuge is switched on or off” (para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayasaka, Xu, 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, Xu, 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, Xu, 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, Xu, 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, Barbisch) 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, Xu, Toedteberg, Galasso, and Barbisch discloses wherein the first lever (20, Fig. 2, Barbisch) comprises a recess (see annotated partial Fig. 6 below, Barbisch).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayasaka, Xu, 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 Xu, further 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 EP 1298785 (Desbiolles et al., hereinafter Desbiolles).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hayasaka, Xu, 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, Xu, 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 Xu, further in view of Toedteberg, further in view of Galasso, 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, Xu, 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 an 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 Xu, further 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, Xu, 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 Xu, further 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, Xu, 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, Xu, 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
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
Prosecution Insights