OFFICE ACTION
This application 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)).
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 12-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3666392 A1 or EP 3666394 A1 in view of {MERESZ et al. (US 5851169) or COLE (US 3317127) or LATHAM, JR. (US 3581981)}.
EP 3666392 A1 in Figures 1-3 and EP 3666394 A1 in Figures 1-4 both disclose the recited modular centrifugal separator system substantially as claimed except for the entrainment member axial extension percentages and distance percentages related to the degree of support of the rotor casing within the entrainment member (last four lines of claim 1 and claims 12-15).
MERESZ et al. discloses an exchangeable separation insert 22 with a rotor casing 44 and a drive arrangement with a low-profile/short rotatable entrainment member 60 with an axial extension within the recited ranges and the rotor casing 44 supported in the entrainment member 60 over the recited distances – Figure 3.
COLE discloses an exchangeable separation insert with a rotor casing 26 and a drive arrangement with a low-profile/short rotatable entrainment member 10 with an axial extension within the recited ranges and the rotor casing 26 supported in the entrainment member 10 over the recited distances – Figure 1.
LATHAM, JR. discloses an exchangeable separation insert with a rotor casing 10 and a drive arrangement with a low-profile/short rotatable entrainment member 12 with an axial extension within the recited ranges and the rotor casing 10 supported in the entrainment member 12 over the recited distances – Figures 1-2.
Since all this prior art teaches that entrainment members for supporting and rotating a rotor casing can be configured as a low-profile or axially short rotatable drive member, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the known technique of MERESZ et al. or COLE or LATHAM, JR. related to low-profile/short entrainment drive members for a centrifuge rotor casing to a known device suitable for improvement (the centrifuges of EP ‘392 and ‘394) thus reducing the mass of the drive arrangement and minimizing the axial support distance between the entrainment member and rotor casing thereby exposing more surface area or portions of the rotor casing. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) and see MPEP 2143(D). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is that this particular known technique of employing a low-profile/short entrainment member to rotatably drive a rotor casing was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the centrifuge art as evidenced by MERESZ et al. or COLE or LATHAM, JR. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known centrifuge device (such as that of EP ‘392 or EP ‘394) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been wholly predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the instant disclosure and prosecution history hardly establishes any criticality to the entrainment member axial extension percentages and distance percentages related to the degree of support of the rotor casing within the entrainment member (e.g., how is the claimed axial extension of the entrainment member at <20%, <30%, <40% of the total axial extension of the rotor casing more critical and thus unobvious over a potential prior art showing of such as <42%, <48%, <50%, < 56%, and the like??). Accordingly, the examiner maintains that with respect to these limitations related to the parameters regarding the axial extension of the entrainment member or the degree or percentage to which the rotor casing is supported in the entrainment member which is present in the claims at issue, the examiner has found that the specification contains 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 dimensions 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 these parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the entrainment members defined by the disclosures of EP ‘392 or EP ‘394 with the configurations and/or dimensions and/or percentages recited in the claims which are considered at most optimum choices, lacking any disclosed criticality.
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 [as in EP ‘394], 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 percentages and/or other variables of the invention 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 again argues again 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.’’).
Claims 2, 3, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3666392 A1 or EP 3666394 A1 in view of MERESZ et al. (US 5851169) or COLE (US 3317127) or LATHAM, JR. (US 3581981) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of KEUNEN et al. (US 4824929).
Modified EP ‘392 or EP ‘394 do not disclose the rotor casing being formed of plastic or the fiber reinforced rings located about the rotor casing.
KEUNEN et al. discloses a centrifuge rotor casing 1 formed of plastic material and including peripheral fiber reinforcement rings 7-10 composed of fiber reinforced material that are located about the periphery/outer wall of the rotor casing 1. The rings 7-10 extend axially and radially thus supporting and reinforcing the rotor casing 1 against pressure forces and stresses.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the rotor casing of modified EP ‘392 or EP ‘394 of plastic material and to have provided the rotor casing of EP ‘394 with reinforcement rings as taught by KEUNEN et al. for the desirable purposes of providing a lightweight rotor casing via the plastic material portion and because the rotor casing is made of synthetic plastics material, which has a lower density than the metal of known rotors, the weight is reduced still further (col. 2, lines 1-5) and for ensuring a low stress in the rotor casing and a high stress in the reinforcing rings, so that the construction, as regards stress, is loaded uniformly; the high modulus of elasticity of rings limits the elongation of the less strong parts of the rotor casing; the reinforcing rings can be constructed in such a manner that they exhibit a stepped configuration on the radially outer surface of the sidewall of the frame such that in a stepped configuration, with contact surfaces normal [or radial] to the axis of rotation, the rings are not subject to forces directed away from the frame and the rings are held firmly secured to the frame during rotation of the rotor casing – col. 2, lines 52-68.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3666392 A1 or EP 3666394 A1 in view of KEUNEN et al. (US 4824929).
EP ‘392 or EP ‘394 do not disclose the rotor casing being formed of plastic or the fiber reinforced rings located about the rotor casing.
KEUNEN et al. discloses a centrifuge rotor casing 1 formed of plastic material and including peripheral fiber reinforcement rings 7-10 composed of fiber reinforced material that are located about the periphery/outer wall of the rotor casing 1. The rings 7-10 extend axially and radially thus supporting and reinforcing the rotor casing 1 against pressure forces and stresses.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the rotor casing of EP ‘392 or EP ‘394 of plastic material and to have provided the rotor casing of EP ‘394 with reinforcement rings as taught by KEUNEN et al. for the desirable purposes of providing a lightweight rotor casing via the plastic material portion and because the rotor casing is made of synthetic plastics material, which has a lower density than the metal of known rotors, the weight is reduced still further (col. 2, lines 1-5) and for ensuring a low stress in the rotor casing and a high stress in the reinforcing rings, so that the construction, as regards stress, is loaded uniformly; the high modulus of elasticity of rings limits the elongation of the less strong parts of the rotor casing; the reinforcing rings can be constructed in such a manner that they exhibit a stepped configuration on the radially outer surface of the sidewall of the frame such that in a stepped configuration, with contact surfaces normal [or radial] to the axis of rotation, the rings are not subject to forces directed away from the frame and the rings are held firmly secured to the frame during rotation of the rotor casing – col. 2, lines 52-68.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The remarks filed 17 JULY 2026 are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection mandated by the newly cited prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses centrifuge systems with rotor casings supported for rotation within a low-profile entrainment member/chuck.
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.
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 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights