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 a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 12 APR 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
The reference characters, lead lines, and the lines forming the Figures 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. Note the lines are faded, blurry, and many lead lines are broken (not continuous) making identification of the element being labeled difficult.
- For example, note broken lead lines associated with “32” and “34” in Figure 4 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, note reference character “60” should be labeling a bolt, yet it is unclear what element the lead line is pointing to in Figure 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
334
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These are merely exemplary of the many line deficiencies appearing throughout the drawings Figure as originally filed.
Applicant should review the substitute 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.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 12 APR 2023 is approved for entry and complies with Rule 125 but 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 substitute 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). The title should mention the recited limiting and damping elements of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 32 is 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 a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32, directly depending from claim 24, recites the limitation “the mounting portion” in line 3 that lacks antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since this term is lacking from claim 24.
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.
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 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BLUME et al. (US 4125335) that discloses a sample processor comprising the claimed elements that are recited broadly with no particular specificity as follows: a main body housing 51 and an electric motor 11 arranged in the main body housing; a swing mechanism being further arranged in the main body housing including a transmission shaft (one or more of 17, 17’, 19), a swing disk 27 for tubes received within receptacles 29-32, and a limiting component 43, 47, and/or 49 arranged proximate to and attached to a circumferential portion of disk 27, or, alternately, a circumferential limiting component 71 attached to the swing disk 27 at 71; the transmission shaft is driven by the electric motor 11 to rotate; an obliquely arranged bearing 35 is sleeved on the transmission shaft at 19; an included angle 21 with respect to axis 21 of shaft portions 17, 17’ and concentrically mounting the disk 27 - Figure 2; the swing disk 27 is mounted on the bearing 35; the swing disk 7 and the bearing 35 are concentrically arranged - Figure 2; and the swing disk 27 is connected to the circumferential limiting component at 45;
a damping mechanism arranged in the main body housing including a supporting plate 13, spring sets (one or more of 15, 16, 18); the electric motor 11 is mounted on the supporting plate 13; one or more of the spring sets is located between a bottom of the supporting plate 13 and a bottom of the main body housing 51 and is capable of providing an upward elastic force to the supporting plate 13; and another of the spring sets is connected to the first spring set and is capable of providing a downward elastic force to the supporting plate - Figure 2;
wherein the damping mechanism further comprises a support body (the angle bracket(s) below 18 in Figure 2); the support body comprises a first connecting portion 18 (upper element 18 - Figure 2) that passes through the supporting plate 13 and connected to the first spring set 15, and an acting portion 16 at an end away from the first spring set; the acting portion extends beyond the supporting plate 13; the second spring set (another of 15) is sleeved on the support body at 18 (lower element 18); and the second spring set is connected to the acting portion 16 at one end and is connected to the supporting plate 13 at the other end;
the limiting component comprises a mounting portion 49 integrally formed with the limiting portion and is mounted on the electric motor 11 by means of the mounting portion 49, and the limiting portion is connected to the swing disk 27 at 45; or, the circumferential limiting component 71 comprises a mounting portion 79 integrally formed with the limiting portion 71 and is mounted on the electric motor 11 by means of the mounting portion 79, and the limiting portion is connected to the swing disk 27 at 71 - Figures 4-5;
wherein a first connecting lug and a second connecting lug (the elements forming 45 - Figure 2) are arranged on the end of the limiting portion connected to the swing disk 27, and the first connecting lug and the second connecting lug respectively extend toward two sides (such as upper and lower sides) of the limiting portion 43;
and wherein the limiting component is made of a flexible material (col. 2, lines 20-31); the swing disk 27 is located above the electric motor 11 - Figure 2; an end of the limiting portion close to the mounting portion 49 is configured to be bent upwardly, and an end of the limiting portion connected to the swing disk 27 is configured to be bent inwardly toward a side close to the swing disk 27 - see Figure 2.
More specifically, the patent to BLUME et al. discloses an improved agitating system capable of high speed, energetic agitation of laboratory materials. Such a system is intended to be especially suitable for blood specimens and other materials dealt with in a biological laboratory. A further object of the present invention is to provide an agitator system of high durability, relative freedom from transmitted vibration, and substantial restraint against rotation of the driven agitating member.
Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, an electric motor 11 is shown suspended from a base unit 13 which is supported on vibration damping or shock mount means 15, 15. The shaft of the motor includes a first portion 17 coaxial with the motor's rotor bearings (not shown) and a further portion 19 (FIG. 2) having its axis 21 inclined relative to the motor's rotor axis 23. The axially aligned portion of the shaft system can be of unitary construction, or may preferably be made up of two portions, the smaller diameter portion 17 being part of the motor as manufactured and the portion 17' being a coaxial sleeve situated under the smaller diameter portion 17 and clamped thereto as shown at 25.
The oscillatory member to be driven by the motor system and the inclined axis shaft portion may consist of a plate structure 27 which may, for example, be made up of internal ribs and thin upper and lower surface portions. A plurality of receptacles 29, 30, 31 and 32 are provided on the oscillatory member 27, arranged to receive vessels such for example as vials of blood or other material to be agitated.
Referring to FIG. 2, at least one bearing unit 35 is provided in the oscillatory member 27 having its inner surface fixed upon the eccentric portion 19 of the motor drive shaft system. Preferably, the bearing arrangement may comprise either two ball bearings or a double race ball bearing arrangement having balls 37 and 39. A threaded and locked clamp 41 may be provided for clamping the inner race portion of the bearing arrangement in position on the inclined axis portion.
One advantageous arrangement involves having axes 21 and 23 intersect substantially at the central point within the oscillatory member 27. With such an arrangement, the center of this oscillatory member remains in one position while the peripheral regions of the member travel through oscillatory orbits.
In accordance with an important feature of the present invention, angular movement of the driven oscillatory member 27 relative to axis 23 (and axis 21) is kept to a minimum by a curved strap 43 of tough, resilient material as a polyurethane. In the illustrated embodiment, the polyurethane strap is approximately 1/16 thick, 11/2 wide and 21/4 inches long. One end region of strap 43 is attached by means of a clamp member 45 and bolts to the driven oscillatory member 27, and the opposite end region of the strap 43 is similarly attached with clamp piece 47 to a bracket 49 extending upward from the base 13.
Vibration of the damping system is kept to a minimum by having the axes 21 and 23 intersect substantially centrally within the driven oscillatory unit 27, and the vibration transmitted to the motor 11 and base 13 may further be kept to a minimum by loading the member 27 with symmetrical loads of vials such as a pair of vials situated in two receptacles which are diametrically oppositely disposed relative to each other, e.g. receptacles 29 and 31, or by having one vial in each of the plural receptacles.
Damping of the vibration is contributed not only by the polyurethane strap 43 but also by the shock mount units 15, 15 which have middle bulbous portions of soft rubber material formed in barrel-like shapes, as shown in more detail in the cross-sectional view at the right in FIG. 2. These soft rubber shock mount units tend to absorb vibration and aid in preserving quietness of the system. Clamping means 16, 16 and center pins 18, 18 may be provided for securing the shock mounts 15, 15 in place.
The tough flexible strap 43 provides restraint against appreciable angular movement about the drive shaft axis. Moreover, they are more susceptible of failure due to fatigue, in contrast to the high durability of the polyurethane strap arrangement of the present invention.
The apparatus shown in FIG. 1 may be housed in an enclosing cabinet 51 which may, if desired, have a hinged box-like protective cover 53. The cover 53 preferably is made of a transparent plastic material to allow observation of the action. Such an arrangement is shown in FIG. 3, most upper portions of the unit being omitted for clarity. The lower ends of the shock mount units 15 may be supported on corner brackets in the corners of cabinet 51 or angle stock therefor may be bonded to the inner walls of the cabinet, stiffening it as well as providing support for the shock mounts.
While a base plate 13 attached to the end of motor 11 has been shown as a convenient means for supporting the motor 11 and bracket 49, this base plate 13 in turn resting upon the shock mount units 15, 15, it will be appreciated that it is not necessary to have a separate top plate 13, since the end plate of the motor 11 may itself be relied on, with or without brackets or other convenient means on the body of the motor for attachment to the ends of shock mounts 15, 15.
The motor 11 may be arranged to rotate at a speed as high as 3500 revolutions per minute, or even higher. Operating at such a speed, the system's action is quite smooth, its effect being pronounced and yielding the intended results in a very short agitation time, in contrast to other, less effective agitator systems. Among the uses for this system are: vial and test tube mixing, denaturation studies of protein, detection of unstable Hb, extractions with PCA or solvents, oxidation-reduction tests, removal of protein, and other tests.
The efficiency achieved with smoothness of operation is related to the orbital action imparted to the vessels such as vials (shown in phantom) held in the receptacles of the driven oscillatory member 27. In the case of a vial in any given receptacle, its center is caused to travel through a substantially elliptical orbit once per revolution of the motor shaft, the major axis of the ellipse being approximately vertical (assuming the cabinet 51 to be resting on a horizontal table top or laboratory counter), and the minor axis being approximately horizontal and of the order of one-third as great as the major axis of the substantial ellipse. The dimensions of the major and minor axes may be of the order of 3/4 inch and 1/4 inch respectively.
While the center of a vial is traversing its substantially elliptical orbit some 25 times or more per second (assuming a motor speed of 3500 R.P.M. or greater), the upper and lower ends of the vial are being caused to traverse more extensive and somewhat more complex orbits which combine aspects of FIG. 8 and elliptical orbits. The result is a very efficient agitative action achieved without the excessive vibration or disturbance which would be objectionable in a medical facility or a biological or other scientific laboratory.
It will be understood that with a unit such as the unit of FIGS. 1 and 2, the angular restraint and damping means for each oscillatory member may take the form shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 or may consist of one or more pairs of such units, each pair having two oppositely-disposed curved straps of the durable plastic material for which polyurethane is suitable. A still greater number of separate straps may be disposed about the motor axis if desired. [i.e., the recited plurality of limiting portions]
Alternatively, the angular restraint and damping means for such oscillatory member may be formed as a figure of revolution about the motor axis [i.e., a circumferential limiting component]. One example is shown in FIGS. 4 and 5. A tough, resilient plastic member 71 is formed into a figure of revolution corresponding approximately to the inner half of a toroid. While the outer half of a toroid could be used, outwardly presenting a convex surface, it would be less convenient to assemble and disassemble. Use of resilient restraint and damping means in the semi-toroid form 71 preferably involves using either multiple arcuate clamp pieces or clamp pieces formed as rings exemplified by lower clamp ring 73 (FIG. 5), the upper clamp ring being omitted for clarity of illustration. The upper rim portion 75 of the semi-torus is for attachment to the bottom of the driven oscillatory member 27 (FIG. 1), and the lower rim portion 77 is for attachment either to the base plate 13 or to a figure-of-revolution bracket or cylinder 79 extending upward from said base plate 13.
The receptacles for holding vials or test tubes or other vessels may take other forms than those shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, and they may be provided in greater or lesser number than the four receptacles shown. For realizing in combination maximum smoothness and maximum loading capacity, a substantial number of the receptacles may be evenly distributed about the central axis of the system and may all be approximately equally loaded. Where less than full capacity is being used, a plurality of vials or other vessels may be positioned in receptacles diametrically opposite each other. However, the illustrated system has been proven to yield excellent results even when there is substantial eccentricity of loading, e.g. where only one vial is being agitated, or where two or three vials are positioned as to produce unbalanced loading of the system.
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.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLUME et al. (US 4125335).
BLUME et al. discloses that a plurality of limiting portions can be employed therein. Moreover, as a further indication of obviousness, with respect to the plurality of limiting portions, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In this instance, to provide more than one limiting portion, as suggested within the four corners of BLUME et al., to provide limiting effects at multiple locations of the swing disk around the motor axis (col. 3, lines 49-57) would not produce a new and unexpected result and Applicant makes no claim to such a result, rendering such duplication well within the realm of obviousness.
Claims 20-21 and claim 31 (as applied to claim 30 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLUME et al. (US 4125335) in view of LUCON ET AL. (US 2015/0146496 A1), LEASE (US 2003/0201562 A1), RIBACK (US 2020/0108363 A1), BARTICK ET AL. (US 6579002 B1), or SCHMIDT, III (US 4619532).
Assuming, arguendo, that BLUME et al. does not disclose the recited spring sets set forth in claims 20-21, the references to LUCON ET AL. (US 2015/0146496 A1), LEASE (US 2003/0201562 A1), RIBACK (US 2020/0108363 A1), BARTICK ET AL. (US 6579002 B1), or SCHMIDT, III (US 4619532) each disclose motor driven agitating devices with upper and lower spring sets disposed on opposing sides of one or more support plates as seen throughout the Figures of these references.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the device of BLUME et al. with the recited multiple spring sets as disclosed by said references for the purposes of providing a spring force on opposing sides of the support plate(s) and/or for the motivation expressed below with regard to SCHMIDT, III.
With respect to the limitation of the parameters regarding the elastic coefficients of the spring sets appearing in claim 21 and the included angle formed between the multiple limiting portions in claim 31, the examiner has found that the specification contained no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, since where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of these elastic coefficients of claim 21 and the angular range of claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the apparatus defined by the disclosure of BLUME et al. with these configurations recited in claims 21 and 31 which are considered at most optimum choices of elastic coefficients and included angles, lacking any disclosed criticality.
BLUME et al. also teaches that with a unit such as the unit of FIGS. 1 and 2, the angular restraint and damping means for each oscillatory member may take the form shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 or may consist of one or more pairs of such units, each pair having two oppositely-disposed curved straps of the durable plastic material for which polyurethane is suitable. A still greater number of separate straps/limiting portions may be disposed about the motor axis if desired. [thus adjacent limiting portions are each disposed at included angles with respect to each other]. Since, any desired number of limiting portions may be disposed about the motor axis as taught by BLUME et al., to dispose such chosen quantity of limiting portions at desired included angles is well within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art.
Nevertheless, Applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification may result in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normannet et al., 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 66 USPQ 314. More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
No probative evidence is of record to demonstrate that the recited coefficients or included angles are significant or are anything more than one of numerous dimensions a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for purposes of merely changing the configurations and/or dimensions to obtain different results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 148 USPQ 459.
Accordingly, the examiner argues that these parameters are rather arbitrary and thus obvious over the prior art per MPEP 2144.05(II)(III).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that a reason to optimize prior art parameters may be found in a PHOSITA’s desire to improve on the prior art. In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.’’).
Moreover, note that at least the reference to SCHMIDT, III discloses a container support plate 34 is supported on motor support plate 18 by four additional springs 36 which are positioned above the springs 20 and preferably in axial alignment therewith. The opposite ends of springs 36 are connected to the respective plates by spring mounts 24 of the type previously described. Springs (spring set) 36 are preferably of larger diameter and of larger wire size and therefore stiffer than springs (spring set) 20. - per col. 3, lines 8-15.
The net effect of this arrangement results in the application of a rather violent agitating motion to the container, but, in view of the fact that the lower springs 20 are more resilient than the upper springs 36, the reaction forces on plate 34 are substantially completely absorbed by springs 20 and are not transmitted to base 12. As a result, even when a filled gallon container is being shaken, there is no tendency for the shaker 10 to "creep" or "walk" on the surface on which it is supported in spite of the fact the the shaker weighs only about 27 pounds. - per col. 5, lines 28-38.
Thus, to provide agitation devices, such as that of BLUME et al., with spring sets wherein each spring set possesses a different elastic coefficient or stiffness for the desirable purpose of mitigating movement of the agitating device along a supporting surface during operation is known in the art, as particularly exemplified by the spring sets 20 and 36 of SCHMIDT, III.
Claims 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLUME et al. (US 4125335) in view of INANIWA et al. (US 6602178 B2).
BLUME et al. discloses a main body housing 51 with a main body upper cover 53 but does not disclose the recited lock-catch switch arrangement.
INANIWA et al. discloses a motor 6 driven rotor within a main body housing 51 having a main body upper cover 50; a lock-catch switch 3 is arranged between the main body upper cover 50 and the main body housing 51, and is connected to a control circuit 21 of the electric motor 6; wherein the lock-catch switch comprises a lock structure 52 and a catch structure (the opening in cover 50 in which the lock structure 52 enters to lock the cover 50 and exits to allow opening of the cover 50 - compare Figures 2 and 3) adapted to the lock structure 52, the lock structure 52 is mounted on the main body housing 51, the catch structure is mounted on the main body upper cover 50 at a position corresponding to the lock structure 52 - Figures 2-3; the lock structure 52 is provided with first and second contact points 18, 19 in communication with the control circuit 21; wherein a contact switch 18, 19, or 20 is arranged between the main body upper cover 50 and the main body housing 51, and is in communication with a control circuit 21 of the electric motor ; wherein the contact switch 18, 19, or 20 is mounted on an inner side of the main body upper cover, and a trigger block 57 is arranged in the main body housing at a position corresponding to the contact switch, or the contact switch 18, 19, or 20 is mounted on an inner side of the main body housing, and a trigger block 57 is arranged in the main body upper cover at a position corresponding to the contact switch.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the housing and cover of BLUME et al. with the recited lock-catch switch arrangement as taught by INANIWA et al. for the purposes of providing a safety feature involving a secure locking of the cover to the housing during operation and to allow release of the lock when it is safe for an operator to lift the cover allowing access to the housing:
The centrifuge further comprises a door, a movable door hook designed to lock and unlock the door selectively, a spring bringing the door hook into a door-locked state to lock the door, and a solenoid energized by the controlling circuit to attract the door hook against an elastic pressure of the spring to bring the door hook into a door-unlocked state to unlock the door. The controlling circuit provides the on-signal to the motor decelerating switching element for the given period of time to decrease the speed of the motor and provides the pulse width-controlled signal to the motor decelerating switching element to turn on and off the motor decelerating switching element cyclically until the voltage of power regenerated by the motor decreases to the given level, after which the controlling circuit energizes the solenoid.
The centrifuge further comprises an interlock spring which holds the door hook being in the door-unlocked state and releases holding of the door hook when the door is closed, a door lock switch disposed between the dc power supply and the motor, a door switch disposed between the dc power supply and the motor in series with the door lock switch. The controlling circuit controls the door lock switch and the door switch to establish electric communication between the dc power supply and the motor after the door is closed, and the door hook is placed in the door-locked state.
The centrifuge also includes switch detectors 18 and 19 and a stop switch 20. The switch detector 18 detects an operating condition (i.e., an on- or off-state) of the door lock detector 4 and provides a signal indicative thereof to the controlling circuit 21. Similarly, the switch detector 19 detects an operating condition (i.e., an on- or off-state) of the door switch 3 and provides a signal indicative thereof to the controlling circuit 21. The stop switch 20 is connected to an input terminal of the controlling circuit 21. - per col. 2, lines 9-33.
The centrifuge also includes, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, a body 51. The body 51 has a door 50 which is opened manually when a mixture is put in or taken out of the rotor 8. A door hook 52 is movably retained by a support pin 55 and urged by a helical spring 56, as shown in FIG. 3, to lock the door 50 at all times. A movable pin 58 is installed on a plunger 57 magnetically linked to the solenoid 10 and fitted in the door hook 52. When energized, the solenoid 10 attracts the plunger 57 and moves the door hook 52, as shown in FIG. 2, against the spring pressure of the helical spring 56 to unlock the door 50. The door 50 is connected pivotably through a hinge mechanism 62 to a portion of the body 51 opposed diametrically to the door hook 52. The helical spring 56, as described above, elastically urges the movable pin 58 to keep the door 52 locked through the door hook 52 and pushes a lever 59 through the movable pin 58 to keep the door lock detector 4 turned on. An interlock spring 54 engages and locks the door hook 52, as shown in FIG. 2, when brought into an unlocked state. When the door 50 is closed, as shown in FIG. 3, the interlock spring 54 is pressed by an end of the door 50 and deformed elastically to be fitted in a recess or curved portion of the door hook 52, thereby releasing the lock of the door hook 52. When the door 50 is closed, the door 50 pushes a lever 53 to turn on the door switch 3. An upper damper 60 and a lower damper 61 are disposed on an upper and a lower end of the motor 6 to minimize the transmission of vibration from the motor 6 to the body 51. The stop switch 20 is installed in a front wall of the body 51. - per col. 3, line 44 - col. 4, line 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 agitating devices similar to the disclosed invention.
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: 13 FEB 2026