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 Statements.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The Abstract of the Disclosure is objected to because:
a. In the amended abstract filed 18 JUL 2023, line 4, insert --of a centrifuge-- after “operation panel” for clarity.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) by mentioning the centrifuge with a controller for detecting abnormality of the cooling device.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HODOTSUKA (US 2014/0121094 A1) in view of JP 11-211292 A.
Claim 1: HODOTSUKA discloses in FIGURES 1-3 a centrifuge 10 comprising a rotor chamber/bowl 13 accommodating a rotor 14 on which a sample is loaded; a motor/drive device 15 for rotationally driving the rotor 14; a cooling device 20 for reducing a temperature in the rotor chamber 13; a temperature sensor 28 for detecting the temperature in the rotor chamber 13; an operation display unit 29 including a set rotation speed display part 31a for displaying a rotation speed of the rotor 14 that has been set by a user and a rotation speed display part 31b for displaying an actual rotation speed of the rotor 14 during centrifuging; and a control unit 27 having functions such as displaying information on the operation display unit 29, wherein the cooling device 20 is provided with a compressor 23 and the control unit 27 performs overall control of the centrifuge 10, including controlling rotation of the motor 15 and the compressor 23.
More specifically, HODOTSUKA discloses a centrifugal separator, that is, a centrifuge 10 illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a frame 11 in a substantially cuboid shape formed of a box-form plate (sheet metal) or the like. Inside the frame 11, a bowl, that is, a storage container 12 formed of a metal thin plate is provided, and the inside of the container 12 is a rotor chamber 13. Inside the rotor chamber 13, a rotating body, that is, a rotor 14 is disposed. At a bottom portion of the storage container 12, a penetrating hole communicating the inside and outside of the rotor chamber 13 is provided, and a rotation axis 16 of an electric motor 15 as a driving unit penetrates the penetrating hole. The rotor 14 is detachably attached to a rotation axis 16 and driven to rotate by the electric motor 15. The electric motor 15 is controlled at an optional rotation speedup to, for example, 22,000 rpm maximum, and the rotor 14 is driven to rotate at a speed same as that of the rotation axis 16. Note that, in an aspect of connecting a vacuum pump not illustrated to the rotor chamber 13 via a pipe, the rotor 13 can be depressurized upon operating the rotor 14.
The large number of rotors 14 are prepared corresponding to samples to be subjected to centrifugal processes and each of the prepared rotors 14 is attached to the rotation axis 16. Assuming that the rotor 14 illustrated is an angle rotor, a plurality of loading portions, each of which is for loading a container such as a tube in which a sample is accommodated, are formed in a circumferential direction at a distance from each other. To the rotor 14, a rotor cover not illustrated is attached to be freely opened and closed. At a tip portion of the rotation axis 16, an attaching portion which is fitted with an attaching hole of the rotor 14 is provided, and a rotor identifier 14a is provided to a bottom portion of the rotor 14. Note that, to the storage container 12 at a position facing the rotor identifier 14a, a rotor-identifier detecting sensor 30 that is a rotor determination unit is disposed. An upper end portion of the storage container 12 is an opening portion and a door 17 for opening and closing the opening portion is attached to the frame 11. In a state of opening the door 17, into and from the inside the rotor chamber 13, the rotor 14 in which a sample(s) to be subjected to a centrifuge process can be inserted and ejected, that is, attached and detached.
To the frame 11, a cooling apparatus 20 is provided as a cooling unit for maintaining the rotor chamber 13 at a desired low temperature. The cooling apparatus 20 includes a cooling pipe 21 wound around the storage container 12, and a circulating pipe 22 connected between an inflow port and an outflow port of the cooling pipe 21. The cooling apparatus 20 is formed of a refrigerator in which a coolant is circulated in the cooling pipe 21 and the circulating pipe 22. A compressor 23 for compressing the coolant in a gas form discharged from the cooling pipe 21 and a condenser (heat exchanger; not illustrated) for cooling and liquidizing the compressed coolant are provided in the same manner as those illustrated in FIG. 2. The cooling pipe 21 and the circulating pipe 22 compose a refrigerating cycle in which the coolant is circulated. In the compressor 23, an electric motor not illustrated is set in as a compressor motor and the compressor 23 can change the rotation speed by an inverter. By changing the rotation speed of the compressor 23, the amount of the coolant circulated and supplied to the cooling pipe 21 is adjusted and the temperature of the rotor 13 is controlled.
To the circulating pipe 22 for sending back the coolant flowed out from the outlet port of the cooling pipe 21 to the inlet port of the cooling pipe 21 via the compressor, a heat exchanger for liquidizing the compressed coolant by cooling, that is, a condenser 24 is provided. Between the condenser 24 and the cooling pipe 21 wound around the storage container 12, a bypass pipe 25 bypassing the cooling pipe 21 is provided, and a flow-rate adjusting bulb 26 is provided to the bypass pipe 25. By adjusting the flow rate of the coolant flowing in the bypass pipe 25 by the flow-rate adjusting bulb 26, temperature of the rotor chamber 13 is controlled. In this type of centrifuge 10, without adjusting the rotation speed of the compressor 23, temperature of the rotor chamber 13 can be controlled by the flow-rate adjusting bulb 26. Also, even when a motor speed is made variable by changing the motor of the compressor to an inverter motor and the inverter motor is operated at the lowest rotation speed, more detailed temperature control is available by controlling the flow-rate adjusting bulb 26.
In addition, when the motor is not an inverter motor, the amount of the coolant flowing in the cooling pipe 21 maybe controlled by controlling ON/OFF of the motor or keeping the motor ON.
Inside the frame 11 of the centrifuge 10 illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, a control unit 27 as a rotation-axis controlling unit and as a cooling control unit, and the rotation speed of the electric motor 15 as a driving unit for rotary driving of the rotor 14 and the rotation speed of the compressor 23 are controlled by the control unit 27. To the control unit 27, a detection signal is transmitted from a temperature sensor 28 for detecting temperature of the rotor chamber 13 provided to the storage container 12, so that the temperature of the rotor chamber 13 is controlled by feedback-control to be at the target controlled temperature based on the detection signal from the temperature sensor 28. To an upper portion of the frame 11, an operation display area 29 is provided and the operation display area 29 functions as an input unit for inputting information such as operation conditions of the rotor operated by a user, and a function as a display area for displaying needed information.
The control unit 27 includes a microcomputer for calculating a control signal and volatile and non-volatile memories in which control program and data are stored. To the control unit 27, output signals of the above-described temperature sensor 28, a door open/close detecting sensor not illustrated, etc. are inputted. The control unit 27 further has functions of performing rotation control of the electric motor 15 for driving the rotor 14 and rotation of the compressor 23 and also displaying information on the operation display area 29 and acquiring inputted data such as the operation conditions of the centrifuge 10 etc. inputted by operating the operation display area 29, so that the control unit 27 controls the whole of the centrifuge 10.
As the information of the operation conditions of the centrifuge 10 inputted by the user operating the operation display area 29, there are the rotation speed of the rotor 14, operation time of the centrifuge 10, cooling temperature of the rotor 14, gradient of acceleration/deceleration of the rotor 14, and so forth. As the operation display area 29, for example, a liquid crystal display (LED) device of touch-panel system is used; however, other optional display devices and input devices may be used.
The inputted information of the operation conditions of the centrifuge 10 is transmitted to the control unit 27. The control unit 27 performs rotation control of the electric motor 15, temperature control of the rotor chamber 13 by the compressor 23, and display of various information items to the operation display area 29 based on the operation conditions previously stored in the memories and the information of the rotor 14 attached to the rotation axis 16. Such entirely control of the centrifuge 10 is performed with software by executing program stored in the memories on the microcomputer. Note that, the control of the centrifuge 10 is not limited to such control described here.
FIG. 3 is a front view illustrating an example of a display screen of the operation display area 29 in which a display screen during a centrifugal process is illustrated. As illustrated, a setting rotation speed display area 31a for displaying a rotation speed of the rotor set by a user and a rotation speed display area 31b for displaying an actual rotation speed during a centrifugal process are provided to the operation display area 29. To the operation display area 29, a set operation time display area 32a for displaying a set operation time of the centrifuge and a remaining operation time display area 32b for displaying a remaining operation time during the centrifugal process are provided. To the operation display area 29, a set temperature display area 33a for displaying a set value of a set rotor temperature and a temperature display area 33b for displaying temperature of the rotor 14 estimated from a detected temperature of the rotor chamber 13 detected by the temperature sensor 28 are provided. Moreover, to the operation display area 29, a rotor display area 34 for displaying a type of the rotor detected by the rotor identifier attached to the rotation axis 16 and a deceleration mode display area 35 for displaying a deceleration mode inputted by the user are provided. What is displayed on the deceleration mode display area 35 is that a setting is made by the user such that the rotor 14 performs a free-run deceleration control.
JP 11-211292 A discloses a refrigeration device provided with a compressor, wherein refrigerant leakage needs to be detected from the point of view of reliability and safety or maintainability, and, to that end, after the start of operation of the refrigeration device, there is an automatic transition to a refrigerant leakage detection mode (corresponding to the recited "simple inspection mode") after a discharge temperature from the compressor or a refrigeration cycle has stabilized, and, in the refrigerant leakage detection mode, when the discharge temperature of the compressor is a higher value than a set value, a refrigerant leakage display 35 displays an abnormality signal
on the assumption that there is a refrigerant shortage due to refrigerant leakage (corresponding to the recited "determining whether or not there is an abnormality in the cooling device" in the invention of this application). Moreover, a temperature difference computing means 283 compares the output signal of a discharged refrigerant temperature detector 7 with the set value set in a storage means 29, and it detects the leakage of the refrigerant of a freezing cycle by the computed temperature difference. Hereby, the user can find out and cope with the leakage of the refrigerant in its early stage, and can prevent the abnormal drop of performance.
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the cooling device 20 in HODOTSUKA such that a refrigerant leakage detection mode can be implemented by the control unit for the purpose of detecting refrigerant leakage from the point of view of reliability, safety and/or maintainability, and so that the operation display unit 29 displays an abnormality signal on the basis of a refrigerant shortage in the cooling device 20, in accordance with the discharge temperature of the compressor.
Claim 2: When the cooling device 20 described in HODOTSUKA is configured so that the refrigerant leakage detection mode can be implemented by the control unit 27 as in JP 11-211292 A , setting a "predetermined time" as the time for measuring the
discharge temperature from the compressor is considered an intrinsic feature since the temperature change certainly occurs within or over “a predetermined time period”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HODOTSUKA (US 2014/0121094 A1) in view of JP 11-211292 A as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of WO 88/04201.
Claim 6: Modified HODOTSUKA does not disclose an inspection mode in a state where the rotor is not installed.
WO 88/04201 discloses a centrifuge with a bowl 16; a rotor 21; and control part 34 with a sensor that performs an inspection mode related to the proper installation of the rotor 21. The sensor and comparator arrangements (Figures 3, 7A, 7B) can indicate if a known rotor is installed on its drive shaft.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided modified HODOTSUKA with an inspection mode related to installation of the rotor to determine if the rotor has been securely fastened in the bowl, thereby contributing to operational safety, because the centrifuge is prevented from operating unless the rotor is properly installed in the centrifuge, per the document summary of WO 88/04201 A:
PNG
media_image1.png
227
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
392
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HODOTSUKA (US 2014/0121094 A1) in view of JP 11-211292 A as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of JP 2019-199981 A.
Claim 9: Modified HODOTSUKA does not disclose the prohibiting or limiting an operation of the centrifuge. JP 2019-199981 A discloses a control protocol for a cooling system wherein in the normal operation mode and the emergency operation mode, the heat source system 1 can execute the function as the heat source system 1 such as heating and cooling. In particular, the compressor 15 can operate in the normal operation mode and the emergency operation mode. In the abnormal stop mode, the heat source system 1 stops the function as the heat source system 1 such as heating and cooling. In particular, in the abnormal stop mode, the operation control unit 191 puts the compressor 15 in a stopped state (does not operate). When the refrigerant sensor 44 detects the refrigerant leak and the state determined by the refrigerant leak detection unit 43 changes from the normal state to the abnormality detection state, the operation control unit 191 controls the heat source system main body 200 to perform the determination operation. Then, the heat source system main body 200 shifts the operation mode of the heat source system 1 from the normal operation mode to either the emergency operation mode or the abnormal stop mode according to the result of the determination operation. The determination operation is an operation for evaluating the amount of refrigerant in the heat source system main body 200 (the remaining amount of the refrigerant enclosed in the heat source system main body 200). In the determination operation, the operation control unit 191 controls the heat source system main body 200 to operate in the cooling operation or the heating operation for a certain period of time, for example, 5 minutes. In particular, the operation control unit 191 rotates the compressor 15 at a predetermined constant rotation speed for a certain period of time. Then, the operation control unit 191 evaluates the temperature difference between the outdoor heat exchanger temperature and the outside air temperature and the temperature difference between the indoor heat exchanger temperature and the indoor temperature after a certain period of time has elapsed.
Accordingly, JP ‘981 discloses the prohibiting or limiting of an operation of the cooling system such as stopping the operation of the compressor of the cooling system when an abnormal condition is determined by the operation control unit.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the control part in modified HODOTSUKA with the capability of prohibiting or limiting an operation of the centrifuge such as stopping the operation of the compressor of the cooling device during an abnormal condition such that when a refrigerant leakage has occurred in a cooling device, the control part will stop operation of a device being cooled or a compressor, as described in JP ‘981, in order to detect refrigerant leakage from the point of view of reliability and safety or maintainability, and so that when there is deemed to be an abnormality in the cooling device, operation of the centrifuge is prohibited or limited - see machine translation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 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 centrifuges with controlled cooling systems.
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: 22 DEC 2025