DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 03/14/2023, Claims 1-20 are pending. The claim set submitted on 10/06/2025 is considered because this is the most recent claim set with some preliminary amendments. Claims 1-11 are considered in the current office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2023 and 02/17/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026).
Regarding Claim 1, Williamson teaches a centrifuge assembly for processing blood and components (See Col. 1 lines 41-44…The invention provides improved centrifugal processing systems …; Col. 5, lines 5-10…The system is particularly well suited for processing whole blood and other suspensions of cellular materials that are subject to trauma), comprising:
a stationary platform (referred to as stationary platform [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 4, 15 ref. 48]);
a rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52) that rotates relative (See Col. 5, lines 63-64…a stationary platform 48, which in tum supports the rotating components of the centrifuge 16) to the stationary platform (referred to as isolated base [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 15 ref. 48]), the rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52) having a rotating component base (referred to as yoke base [Col. 6 lines 6, 8, 20; Fig. 5, ref. 58]);
a drive shaft (referred to as a first drive shaft [Col. 6, lines 2, 9; Fig. 6, ref. 54]) attached (See Fig. 5 for “attached”) to the rotating component base (referred to as yoke base [Col. 6 lines 6, 8, 20; Fig. 5, ref. 58]);
a motor (referred to a first motor [Col. 6 lines 20-21; Fig. 6, ref. 66]) housed in the stationary platform (referred to as stationary platform [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 4, 15 ref. 48]), the motor (referred to a first motor [Col. 6 lines 20-21; Fig. 6, ref. 66]) spinning (See Col. 6, lines 9-10…first electric drive 66 rotates the yoke assembly 50 on the first drive shaft 54, thereby teaching “spinning”) the drive shaft (referred to as a first drive shaft [Col. 6, lines 2, 9; Fig. 6, ref. 54]) relative (See Fig. 5) to the stationary platform (referred to as stationary platform [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 4, 15 ref. 48]), thereby rotating the rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52) relative to the stationary platform(referred to as stationary platform [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 4, 15 ref. 48]);
a contactless power source (referred to as the power driver 186 [col. 8, line 36]; uses a single slip ring assembly 192 [col. 8, line 28], thereby teaching “contactless”) including a power source transmitter (referred to as first electric motor 66 including its three poles PA/PB/PC connected to three power feeds (designated FA, FB, and FC in FIG. 10) [Col. 8 lines 35-40]) and a power source receiver (referred to as the second electric motor 72 with three poles PA/PB/PC of [Col. 8 lines 40-43]), wherein the power source transmitter (referred to as first electric motor 66 including its three poles PA/PB/PC connected to three power feeds (designated FA, FB, and FC in FIG. 10) [Col. 8 lines 35-40]) wirelessly transmits power (See Col.8, lines 40-46…The power feeds FA/FB/FC are, in turn, connected in parallel to the three poles PA/PB/PC of the second electric motor 72, each via one slip ring RA/RB/RC, thereby teaching “wirelessly transmits”) to the power source receiver (referred to as the second electric motor 72 with three poles PA/PB/PC of [Col. 8 lines 40-43]), the power source transmitter (referred to as first electric motor 66 including its three poles PA/PB/PC connected to three power feeds (designated FA, FB, and FC in FIG. 10) [Col. 8 lines 35-40]) being associated with a surface of the stationary platform (referred to as stationary platform [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 4, 15 ref. 48]; Examiner submits that the stationary platform has a surface) facing the rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52) and the power source receiver (referred to as the second electric motor 72 with three poles PA/PB/PC of [Col. 8 lines 40-43]) being associated with a surface of the rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52; Examiner submits that the embodiment of the a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52 has a surface) facing the stationary platform (referred to as stationary platform [Col. 6, line 2, 9…stationary platform Figs. 4, 15 ref. 48]); and
an active electronic device (referred to as processing controller [Col.5, lines 44-45, Fig. 1-2, ref. 32) associated (See Fig. 1-5 and 10-11 for “associated”) with the rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52) and operatively connected (See Fig. 1-5 and 10-11 for “operatively connected”) to the power source receiver (referred to as the second electric motor 72 with three poles PA/PB/PC of [Col. 8 lines 40-43]), wherein the power source receiver (referred to as the second electric motor 72 with three poles PA/PB/PC of [Col. 8 lines 40-43]) provides power (Col.8 , lines 61-63…the second motor 72 becomes a generator, delivering power …) to the active electronic device (referred to as processing controller [Col.5, lines 44-45, Fig. 1-2, ref. 32).
In addition, Examiner submits that the claimed “surface” in the “surface of the stationary platform” is not specifically defined in the specification and will therefore be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Any portion or part of the embodiment of the stationary platform will be considered a “surface”. As such, any part or portion of the stationary platform would satisfy “a surface”.
In addition, Claim 1 recites a rotating component; a motor, power source transmitter, power source receiver and active electronic device and then recites how these structures function. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Williamson does not explicitly teach that the active electronic device exchanges data with another device that is not located on the rotating component.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the active electronic device (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) exchanges data (See Para 0030…The microprocessor (‘control unit’) is further programmed for receiving, directly or through the memory, information …from the sensors) with another device (referred to as microprocessor [Para 0030]) that is not located (See Fig. 3…a controller 80 including a control unit (microprocessor) appears not to be physically located of the structure of the rotor) on the rotating component (referred to as rotor [Para 0023; Figs. 3-4, ref. 16]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that that the active electronic device exchanges data with another device that is not located on the rotating component, as taught by Holmes for the benefit of having information (‘data’) provided to the microprocessor (control unit/controller 80) (Holmes, Para 0030; Fig. 1, ref. 80), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
In addition, Claim 2 recites the active electronic device and then recites how it functions with respect to another device. Claim 2 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 3, Williamson does not explicitly teach that the active electronic device wirelessly exchanges data with another device that is not located on the rotating component.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the active electronic device (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) wirelessly exchanges data (See Para 0030…The microprocessor (‘control unit’) is further programmed for receiving, directly or through the memory, information …from the sensors; Also Examiner submits that the no wire connection is taught) with another device (referred to as microprocessor [Para 0030]) that is not located (See Fig. 3…a controller 80 including a control unit (microprocessor) appears not to be physically located of the structure of the rotor) on the rotating component (referred to as rotor [Para 0023; Figs. 3-4, ref. 16]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that that the active electronic device wirelessly exchanges data with another device that is not located on the rotating component, as taught by Holmes for the benefit of having information (‘data’) provided to the microprocessor (control unit/controller 80) (Holmes, Para 0030; Fig. 1, ref. 80), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
In addition, Claim 3 recites the active electronic device and then recites how it functions with respect to another device. Claim 2 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 6, Williamson does not explicitly teach that the another device not located on the rotating component comprises a controller.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further that the another device (referred to as microprocessor (‘control unit’) [Para 0030]) not located (See Fig. 3…a controller 80 including a control unit (microprocessor) appears not to be physically location of the structure of the rotor) on the rotating component (referred to as rotor [Para 0023; Figs. 3-4, ref. 16]) comprises a controller (See Para 0030…a controller 80 including a control unit (microprocessor)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that the another device not located on the rotating component comprises a controller, as taught by Holmes for the benefit of having information (‘data’) provided to the microprocessor (control unit/controller 80) from pressure gauge 67 and from the sensors in the lid and for controlling centrifuge motor 40, stepper motor 63, and pinch valve members 42, 43, 44 so as to cause the separation apparatus to operate along a selected separation protocol (Holmes, Para 0030; Fig. 1, ref. 80), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
Regarding Claim 7, Williamson does not explicitly teach that the active electronic device comprises a sensor.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the active electronic device (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) comprises a sensor (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that the active electronic device comprises a sensor, as taught by Holmes for the benefit of detecting characteristics of the separation process occurring within a separation bag 1 when the apparatus operates (Holmes, Para 0029), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
Regarding Claim 8, the centrifuge assembly of claim 7 is obvious over Williamson in view of Holmes.
Williamson does not teach that the sensor senses one or more characteristics of blood and/or blood components.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the sensor (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) senses one or more characteristics of blood and/or blood components (See Para 0056…The sensor 69 detects the passage of the RBC interface. Preferably, the sensor is located where it is expected that the red blood cells will have been packed to a hematocrit of 85%; See Para 0062…sensor 70 has detected an interface between plasma and the platelet/mononuclear cells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that the sensor senses one or more characteristics of blood and/or blood components as taught by Holmes for the benefit of detecting characteristics of the separation process occurring within a separation bag 1 (blood product) when the apparatus operates (Holmes, Para 0029), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
In addition, Claim 8 recites the sensor and then recites how it functions. Claim 8 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 9, the centrifuge assembly of claim 8 is obvious over Williamson in view of Holmes.
Williamson does not teach that the sensor comprises an optical sensor.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the sensor (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) comprises an optical sensor (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029], thereby teaching “optical sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that the sensor comprises an optical sensor as taught by Holmes for the benefit of detecting characteristics of the separation process occurring within a separation bag 1 (blood product) when the apparatus operates (Holmes, Para 0029), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
Regarding Claim 10, the centrifuge assembly of claim 7 is obvious over Williamson in view of Holmes.
Williamson does not teach the sensor senses one or more characteristics of the centrifuge assembly.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the sensor (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) senses one or more characteristics (See Para 0029… separation apparatus further comprises sensors 69 for detecting characteristics …) of the centrifuge assembly (See Abstract…a centrifuge blood component separation system for separating components of a blood product).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that the sensor senses one or more characteristics of the centrifuge assembly as taught by Holmes for the benefit of detecting characteristics of the separation process occurring within a separation bag 1 (blood product) when the apparatus operates (Holmes, Para 0029), facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
In addition, Claim 10 recites the sensor and then recites how it functions. Claim 10 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 11, Williamson does not explicitly teach that the active electronic device comprises one or more of a blood component detector, an interface detector, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, hemolysis sensor, weight scale and camera.
In the analogous art of a method for separating a volume of composite biologic liquid or blood product into at least two components where the method optimizes the separation process for minimum separation time in a centrifuge apparatus for separating biologic fluids, such as blood, Holmes further teaches that the active electronic device (referred to as sensor comprising a photocell including an infrared LED and a photo-detector [Para 0029]) comprises one or more of a blood component detector, an interface detector, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, hemolysis sensor, weight scale and camera (See Para 0029…When the lid is closed, the sensors face separation bag 1 to detect an interface gas/liquid, an interface between plasma and a platelet/mononuclear cell layer, or an interface between platelet rich plasma and mononuclear cells, as well as red blood cells, thereby teaching “an interface detector”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a centrifuge assembly of Williamson to incorporate that the active electronic device comprises one or more of a blood component detector, an interface detector, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, hemolysis sensor, weight scale and camera, as taught by Holmes for the benefit of detecting characteristics of the separation process occurring within a separation bag 1 when the apparatus operates, wherein when the lid is closed, the sensors face separation bag 1 to detect an interface gas/liquid, an interface between plasma and a platelet/mononuclear cell layer, or an interface between platelet rich plasma and mononuclear cells, as well as red blood cells (Holmes, Para 0029),facilitating the improvement of the efficiency of a centrifugal blood processing apparatus by reducing processing time (Holmes, Para 0030).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1), and further in view of Case et al. (US20130190674A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the centrifuge assembly of claim 3 is obvious over Williamson in view of Holmes.
The combination of Williamson and Holmes does not teach that the wireless exchange of data is via one or more of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and near field communication.
In the analogous art of an apheresis machine where the apheresis machine includes a separation component configured to separate blood into blood components and a processing circuit configured to control the separation component, Case teaches that the wireless exchange of data is via one or more of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and near field communication (See Para 0029…Medical device 104 may include interface 156 configured to receive and/or transmit data to other electronic devices.… data link 112 may be a wireless connection between interface 156 of medical device 104 and an interface 120 of measurement device 114 (e.g., interface 156 communicates with measurement device 114 via a WiFi, cellular, near-field, radio, Bluetooth, optical, or other form of wireless connection)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the centrifuge assembly of Williamson and Holmes to incorporate that the wireless exchange of data is via one or more of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and near field communication, as taught by Case for the benefit of enabling the medical device 104 which may include interface 156 configured to receive and/or transmit data to other electronic devices (Case, Para 0029), allowing for the processing circuit of the medical device to mirror a memory partition to a redundant storage device, allowing for uninterrupted execution of the medical procedure in the event of a memory failure condition (Case, Abstract).
In addition, Claim 4 recites the centrifuge assembly and then recites how it functions. Claim 4 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 5, the centrifuge assembly of claim 3 is obvious over Williamson in view of Holmes.
Williamson teaches the rotating component (See Col. 5, lines 66-67…the rotating components include a centrifuge yoke assembly 50 and a centrifuge chamber assembly 52).
The combination of Williamson and Holmes does not teach that the active electronic device includes a first wireless data exchange device and the another device not located on the rotating component includes a second wireless data exchange device, wherein the first and second wireless data exchange devices exchange data with one another.
In the analogous art of an apheresis machine where the apheresis machine includes a separation component configured to separate blood into blood components and a processing circuit configured to control the separation component (a centrifuge or spinning membrane), Case teaches that the active electronic device (referred to as measurement device [Para 0025, Fig. 1, ref. 114]) includes a first wireless data exchange device (referred to as interface Fig. 1, ref. 120; Para 0029]) and the another device (referred to as medical device [Para 0025, Fig. 1, ref. 104]) not located (See Para 0028…the medical device, 104 is not located on the rotating components) on the rotating component (See Para 0080…rotating components) includes a second wireless data exchange device (referred to as interface Fig. 1, ref. 156; Para 0029]), wherein the first and second wireless data exchange devices exchange data with one another (See Para 0029; Fig. 1…data link 112 may be a wireless connection between interface 156 of medical device 104 and an interface 120 of measurement device 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the centrifuge assembly of Williamson and Holmes to incorporate that the active electronic device includes a first wireless data exchange device and the another device not located on the rotating component includes a second wireless data exchange device, wherein the first and second wireless data exchange devices exchange data with one another, as taught by Case for the benefit of enabling the medical device 104 which may include interface 156 configured to receive and/or transmit data to other electronic devices (Case, Para 0029), allowing for the processing circuit of the medical device to mirror a memory partition to a redundant storage device, allowing for uninterrupted execution of the medical procedure in the event of a memory failure condition (Case, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 1 by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026); and Claims 2 and 6-11 are rejected by Williamson et al. (US5525218A) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1).
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to include a drive shaft attached to the rotating component and a motor housed within the stationary platform, wherein the motor spins the drive shaft. Claim 1 has also been amended to recite that the power source transmitter is associated with a surface of the stationary platform facing the rotating component. Accordingly, the claim now calls for a stationary platform that houses a motor and has a power source transmitter associated with a surface of the stationary platform. For the reasons set forth below, Holmes and Mecke, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest a centrifuge assembly having these features, and the rejection should be withdrawn…. Neither Holmes nor Mecke provides any teaching, suggestion, or guidance for undertaking such a redesign, nor do they provide any basis for concluding that such a modification would be predictably successful. The Examiner's proposed combination therefore relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Holmes and Mecke, alone or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the subject matter of amended claim 1 or the claims that depend therefrom.
Regarding the tertiary reference of Case, it is respectfully submitted that this reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Holmes and Mecke.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of the claims of the present application under 35 U.S.C. §103 should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of amended Claim 1 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 1 (Supra) by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for Claim 3 is made in view of Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1); and Claims 4-5 are rejected by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1), and further in view of Case et al. (US20130190674A1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-5 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of Claim 3 which is dependent on amended Claim 1 (via Claim 2) is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 3 (Supra) by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1).
Also, Examiner submits that the limitations of Claims 4-5 which are dependent on amended Claim 1 (Via Claims 2-3) is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 4-5 (Supra) by Williamson et al. (US5525218A, as submitted in the IDS 02/17/2026) in view of Holmes et al. (US20120015794A1), and further in view of Case et al. (US20130190674A1).
Examiner suggest that Applicant further clarify the Claims for specificity to distinguish the Applicant’s inventions from that the instant prior art combination on record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights