OFFICE ACTION after ELECTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of GROUP I - claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 16 FEB 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are thereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 FEB 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement 5 NOV 2024.
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 in the specification.
The abstract is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
The recitation of “small-format” throughout the claims is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what particular containers fall within or are excluded from the scope of “small-format”.
Claim 1: all occurrences of “the rotor” lack antecedent basis.
Claims 4-6 are confusing - it appears --the-- should be inserted before “low-degree angle” and “form” should be --from--.
Claim 10, line 1: insert --the-- before “rotor attachment” for clarity
The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted - MPEP 608.01(o).
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
NOTE: the claim term “low degree angle” is interpreted as defined in the instant specification at ¶ [0022] - [0026] and in claims 4-6.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHAFF et al. (US 2021/0316317 A1) that discloses a centrifuge 301 or 1001, comprising a cavity 110 suited to hold one or more small-format containers; a rotor attachment 101 or 401 having an axis of rotation 104 and configured to hold the one or more small-format containers at a low degree angle relative to a centrifugal plane of motion centered about the axis of rotation - per ¶ [0013], [0043], [0047], [0069], [0079], [0087]; an actuator 305 coupled to the rotor [attachment] 101 or 401 and configured to rotate the rotor [attachment] 101 or 401 in the centrifugal plane of motion; and a power source 306 coupled to the actuator and configured to provide power to actuate the rotor [attachment] 101 or 401;.
an encapsulating lid 303 or 1004 configured to be rotated to encapsulate the cavity;
a base 302 or 1004 supporting the cavity;
wherein low-degree angle comprises approximately zero degrees, five degrees, or ten degrees with respect to an orthogonal direction from the axis of rotation 104 per ¶ [0013], [0043], [0047], [0069], [0079], [0087];
wherein the cavity is sized so as to hold no more than two small-format blood collection containers 102 during centrifugation [0037];
wherein the rotor attachment 101 or 401 is further configured to hold the one or more small-format containers 102 relative to the radial orientation of the centripetal force exerted during rotation - Figures 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 9B.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHAFF et al. (US 2022/0347699 A1) that discloses a centrifuge 408, comprising a cavity 405, 406 suited to hold one or more small-format containers 110; a rotor attachment 401 having an axis of rotation and configured to hold the one or more small-format containers 110 at a low degree angle relative to a centrifugal plane of motion centered about the axis of rotation - Figure 4; an actuator 603 coupled to the rotor [attachment] 401 and configured to rotate the rotor [attachment] 401 in the centrifugal plane of motion; and a power source 606 coupled to the actuator 603 and configured to provide power to actuate the rotor [attachment] 401;
an encapsulating lid 601 configured to be rotated to encapsulate the cavity;
a base 602 supporting the cavity;
wherein low-degree angle comprises approximately ten degrees with respect to an orthogonal direction form the axis of rotation - Figure 3;
wherein actuator 603 comprises a 3-Volt DC brushless motor 603 - [0053];
wherein the base unit comprises an on/off switch configured to control actuation of the actuator 603 per [0031], [0054], [0060], [0077], claim 15;
wherein the cavity is sized so as to hold no more than two small-format blood collection containers during centrifugation - [0047] and Figures 4-5;
wherein the rotor attachment 401 is further configured to hold the one or more small-format containers relative to the radial orientation of the centripetal force exerted during rotation - [0047] and Figures 4-5.
Allowable Subject Matter
No elected claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses portable type centrifuges and rotors for holding sample containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 20 MAY 2026
Prosecution Insights