OFFICE ACTION 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e). Information Disclosure Statement Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements. Election/Restriction Applicant’s election without traverse of SPECIES B - claims 14-33, in the reply filed on 1 DEC 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 were cancelled. Drawings The drawings filed 9 AUG 2023 are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction: The apparently handwritten reference characters and the lines forming Figures 1-8, 10-29, 36-37, 40-43, 46-48, 49-51, 56-78, and 81-82 are of poor quality (not uniformly thick and well-defined - 37 CFR 1.84(l): All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Applicant should review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification may require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review. From MPEP 608.01(g) : The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations. Applicant should thus verify that (1) all reference characters in the drawings are described in the detailed description portion of the specification and (2) all reference characters mentioned in the specification are included in the appropriate drawing Figure(s) as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES Replacement Drawing Sheets Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified. Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin. Annotated Drawing Sheets A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets. Timing of Corrections Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application. If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability ( PTOL -37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability. Note the replacement sheets of drawings filed 5 MAY 2025 and 9 SEP 2025 in the parent application 17/695650 addressing these objections were approved as complying with Rule 84. 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 instant specification should incorporate the changes made to the specification in the parent application 17/695,650 as appropriate. The Abstract and title are approved. 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 14-33 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 joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 14, line 1: “The portable centrifuge” lacks antecedent basis - change to --A portable centrifuge--. Claim 15, line 2 appears to be missing wording: “is to a portion of”? Claim 19, line 2: it appears “are” should be --is--. Claim 30, line 2: “the central container” lacks antecedent basis. New claim 32 contains several trademarks/trade names. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a density gradient media and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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). To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City , 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The Supreme Court has noted: Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 127 S.Ct . 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742). 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 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. 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. The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024 , wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art ( PHOSITAs ) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id . at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea , 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ( PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR , 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id. From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n , 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph , Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42. The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc ., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s] uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. ’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre- KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id ., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel ). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR . Unwired Planet , 841 F.3d at 1003. Claims 14, 15, 17, 21, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORHAM et al. (US 2004/0112824 A1) in view of PELZER (US 5344382). GORHAM et al. discloses a centrifuge comprising a base 24, 26; the base comprising a rotational mechanism 58; a sequester wheel device B, the sequester device being disposed onto the base, the sequester device B comprises spaced apart multiple concentric rings 71-77 and 81-87 defining multiple channels therebetween; an inner container disposed between the radially innermost ring and the outer surface of 50 as seen in Figure 7; a central axis along “RA”; a cover 102, the cover 102 disposed over the sequester wheel device - Figure 7; the rings being tiered (i.e., alternating rings extend to different vertical extents as seen in Figure 7); ports 104, 105 capable of use as injection or extraction ports disposed in the cover - Figure 8; disaggregation elements/facets (radial arms 90f ) disposed on a surface of the rings 71-77 (Figure 11); and a protective cover 22 disposed over the cover 102 - Figure 7; a second cover 22 disposed over the cover 102. GORHAM et al. does not disclose the heating mechanism. PELZER discloses a similar centrifuge 1 including a base 7; a rotational mechanism 5 coupled to the base; concentric rings 4, 8; and an electrical heating mechanism 13 within the centrifuge. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided GORHAM et al. with a heating mechanism as disclosed by PELZER for the purposes of: The multi-chamber centrifuge according to this invention can further be made in such a way that at least some cylinders of the fixed set are provided with electrical resistance heating. That way the material exchange can be closely controlled by the desired warming of the liquid. The necessary energy introduction into the fixed cylinders is easy from a construction point of view. (col. 2, lines 50-58) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORHAM et al. (US 2004/0112824 A1) in view of PELZER (US 5344382) as applied to claim 14 in view of GOCHENOUR et al. (US 2588716). Modified GORHAM et al. does not disclose the UV light. GOCHENOUR et al. discloses a centrifugal device with a rotatable rotor 1 and the centrifuge including a UV-C light 5 (of 253.7 nm which resides in the UV-C range). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the centrifuge of modified GORHAM et al. with a UV light as taught by GOCHENOUR et al. for the purposes of inactivating, killing, attenuating or otherwise altering microorganisms or viruses within the substances within the centrifuge (col. 6, lines 27-38) thus providing a germicidal effect via the UV-C light: Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORHAM et al. (US 2004/0112824 A1) in view of PELZER (US 5344382) as applied to claim 14 in view of in view of DANIELSSON et al. (US 2885145). Modified GORHAM et al. does not disclose the sequester wheel formed of a clear material. DANIELSSON et al. discloses a centrifugal device 21 with a cover formed of transparent/clear material. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the centrifuge of modified GORHAM et al. such that the sequester wheel or any of the other elements thereof are formed of a transparent/clear material as disclosed by DANIELSSON et al. to enable inspection of the contents within portions of the centrifuge through such transparent/clear material (col. 2, lines 10-28). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16, 18, 19, 20, 22-24, and 29-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses centrifuges with concentric rings disposed within the rotor, anticoagulant coatings, UV lights, and transparent or translucent covers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1139 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 20 MAR 2026