NON-FINAL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 13 April 2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10 May 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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 of in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable.
The title of the invention is acceptable.
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 (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 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, 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houston et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,487,719, hereinafter Houston).
Regarding claim 1, Houston discloses a rotor for use in a centrifuge (Fig. 1), comprising: a rotor body (12, Fig. 1) including an axis of rotation, an upper surface (upper surface of top portion 13, Fig. 1), a lower surface opposite the upper surface (lower surface of bottom portion 30, Fig. 1), and an elongated bore (bore formed through the central drive hub 38, Fig. 4) extending along the axis of rotation between the upper surface and the lower surface, the upper surface of the rotor body including a plurality of cavities (apertures 29 and tubes 50, Fig. 5) extending from the upper surface and into the rotor body, each of the plurality of cavities being configured to receive a sample container (fluid container 56, Fig. 5), and the lower surface of the rotor body including a lower bore opening in communication with the elongated bore and having a first cross-sectional shape (drive hub 38 includes polygonal sidewall 40, col. 3 lines 44-45) transverse to the axis of rotation; and a drive hub (rotor snap mechanism 90, Fig. 7) mounted within the elongated bore (see Fig. 4) and including a drive portion (bottom portion 94, Fig. 7) having a second cross-sectional shape (bottom portion 94 of the rotor snap mechanism 90 includes an outer polygon-shaped sidewall 96, col. 5 lines 34-35) transverse to the axis of rotation that is complementary to the first cross-sectional shape such that the drive portion of the drive hub applies torque to the rotor body via engagement of the drive portion with the lower bore opening of the rotor body (the connection mechanism 90 transmits torque from the motor drive shaft to the rotor, col. 5 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 3, Houston discloses wherein the rotor body includes un upper bore opening (circular hole 44, Fig. 4) in communication with the elongated bore, and the elongated bore is cylindrical in cross-section transverse to the axis of rotation between the lower bore opening and upper bore opening (upper annular wall 42 forms a portion of the bore through the central drive hub 38, which is cylindrical, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Houston discloses wherein the lower bore opening includes one or more sidewalls (drive hub 38 includes polygonal sidewall 40, col. 3 lines 44-45), the drive portion (bottom portion 94, Fig. 7) of the drive hub (rotor snap mechanism 90, Fig. 7) has one or more faces (outer polygon-shaped sidewall 96, col. 5 lines 34-35) each engaging a respective sidewall of the lower bore opening, and the application of torque to the rotor body is by the one or more faces engaging the respective sidewalls (the connection mechanism 90 transmits torque from the motor drive shaft to the rotor, col. 5 lines 15-20).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston in view of Letourneur (EP 0712667B1).
Regarding claim 2, Houston discloses complementary polygonal cross-sectional shapes, specifically octagonal, for the drive portion and the lower bore opening (col. 3 lines 44-45; col. 5 lines 34-35), but does not disclose wherein the first cross-sectional shape and the second cross-sectional shape are each rectangular.
Letourneur discloses that rectangular cross-sectional shapes are a suitable and effective choice for torque transmitting bore interfaces in centrifuge rotors (shaft 3 has a substantially rectangular shape, page 4 lines 29-34 of machine translation; ring 14 has an opening generally rectangular straight section 15 dimensioned to receive substantially no play lateral an end portion provided with flats 3a of the shaft, page 5 lines 13-19 of machine translation). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Houston’s octagonal cross-sectional shapes to rectangular cross-sectional shapes as taught by Letourneur for the purpose of using polygons to serve the same function of transmitting torque via complementary engagement (page 5 lines 13-19 of machine translation, Letourneur). The selection of a particular polygon shape, e.g. rectangular or another shape, is a routine design choice well within the ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston.
Regarding claim 4, Houston discloses a lid including a central wall portion (portion of lid that grip 62 projects from, see Fig. 2), a conical wall portion (analogous to bowl-shaped web 64, Fig. 2) extending upwardly and outwardly from the central wall portion, and an annular wall portion (wall 66, Fig. 2) extending radially outward from the conical wall portion remote from the central wall portion such that the annular wall portion is radially and axially offset from the central wall portion. Changes in shape between the prior art and the claimed invention is considered a matter of obvious design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP § 2144. In this case, without evidence to indicate that conical shape of the wall portion is critical, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the wall portion to any desired shape, including that of a conical shape.
Regarding claim 7, Houston discloses wherein the lid includes a lid-lifting handle (grip 62, Fig. 1) that projects axially upward from the central wall portion of the lid.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston in view of Piramoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0216622, hereinafter Piramoon).
Regarding claim 5, Houston does not disclose wherein the conical wall portion of the lid is configured to engage each sample container placed into a respective cavity when the lid is operatively coupled to the rotor.
Piramoon discloses analogous art related to a fixed-angle centrifuge rotor assembly (2a, Fig. 7C), wherein the conical wall portion (angled surface 71a, Fig. 7B) of the lid (70a, Fig. 7B) is configured to engage each sample container placed into a respective cavity when the lid is operatively coupled to the rotor (para. [0049]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotor of Houston with the lid of Piramoon for the purpose of pressing downwardly on the caps 82, forcing the caps 82 onto the containers 80 loaded into the wells 20 (para. [0049], Piramoon).
Regarding claim 6, Houston does not disclose wherein the upper surface of the rotor body defines an upper recess, and the central wall portion and the conical wall portion of the lid are received in the upper recess.
Piramoon discloses wherein the upper surface of the rotor body (rotor body 10a, Fig. 7B and 7C) defines an upper recess, and the central wall portion and the conical wall portion of the lid are received in the upper recess (see annotated Fig. 7C below). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotor of Houston with the rotor and lid configuration as taught by Piramoon for the purpose of pressing downwardly on the caps 82, forcing the caps 82 onto the containers 80 loaded into the wells 20 (para. [0049], Piramoon).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston in view of KR 20170045333 (Hoelderle et al., hereinafter Hoelderle).
Regarding claim 8, Houston does not disclose wherein the lid-lifting handle includes a cylindrical wall having a handle flange projecting radially outward form a free end of the cylindrical wall remote from the central wall portion of the lid.
Hoelderle discloses analogous art related to a fixed-angle centrifuge rotor, wherein the lid-lifting handle (handle 90, Fig. 2) includes a cylindrical wall having a handle flange projecting radially outward form a free end of the cylindrical wall remote from the central wall portion of the lid (central wall portion of lid 82, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotor of Houston with the lid-lifting handle of Hoelderle for the purpose of securing the lid in place with a center adjustment pin 94 (page 4, paragraph 5 of machine translation, Hoelderle).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Houston and Hoederle discloses wherein the drive hub (rotor snap mechanism 90, Fig. 7, Houston; rotor hub 42, Fig. 1, Hoelderle) includes a cylindrical shaft (cylindrical wall 120, Fig. 4, Houston; actuating pin 100, Fig. 1, Hoelderle) that projects upwardly through the elongated bore (through bore formed in the central drive hub 38, Fig. 4, Houston; bore formed through adapter 14, Fig. 1, Hoelderle) from the drive portion (bottom portion 94, Fig. 7, Houston; upper circumferential wall 22, Fig. 1, Hoelderle) of the drive hub.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston in view of Hoelderle, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Romanauskas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,819,111, hereinafter Romanauskas) and Goodwin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,730,566, hereinafter Goodwin).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Houston and Hoelderle does not disclose wherein an upper portion of the cylindrical shaft includes a threaded outer surface having threads with a major diameter and a minor diameter, and the cylindrical shaft includes a protruding end having the minor diameter and that extends a distance beyond the threads of the threaded outer surface.
Romanauskas discloses analogous art related to a fixed-angle centrifuge rotor, wherein an upper portion of the cylindrical shaft (threaded male member 48, Fig. 3) includes a threaded outer surface having threads with a major diameter and a minor diameter (a threaded outer surface inherently has a major diameter and a minor diameter). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotor of the combination of Houston and Hoelderle with the threaded hub shaft of Romanauskas for the purpose of securing a cover to the rotor body via threaded engagement (col. 3 lines 26-45, Romanauskas).
Goodwin discloses a threaded bolt comprising a protruding end having the minor diameter and that extends a distance beyond the threads of the threaded outer surface (“a protruding diameter member opposite the head 12, commonly referred to as a dog point 18, Fig. 1A). Goodwin teaches that “the dog point 18 diameter preferably may be 90 percent of the minor inside diameter of the nut,” which approximates the minor diameter of the external thread. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75 (CCPA 1946); see also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924 (CCPA 1933). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotor in the combination of Houston, Hoelderle, and Romanauskas with the protruding end as taught by Goodwin for the purpose of restricting misalignment angle between two members (col. 2 lines 14-25, Goodwin) and prevent cross-threading of the lid screw.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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, because the prior art does not teach or suggest a lid screw including a lower bore having a threaded inner surface, and lid screw flange that extends radially outward from a lower end of the lid screw, wherein the threaded outer surface of the drive hub is configured to threadedly engage the threaded inner surface of the lower bore of the lid screw, and the lid screw flange has a lower surface configured to urge the lid into contact with the rotor body in response to threaded engagement of the lid screw and the drive hub.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights