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 substitute abstract is acceptable.
The title is acceptable.
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, 4-8, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3666394.
EP 3666394 discloses a modular centrifugal separator and base unit thereof and system, namely, a modular centrifugal separator system configured for separating a liquid feed mixture into a heavy phase and a light phase that includes per paras. 35-108 of the description, and Figs. 1-5) a modular centrifugal separator consisting of a base unit 4 and an exchangeable separation insert 6, wherein the base unit 4 comprises a stationary frame 8 and a drive arrangement 18 for rotating the exchangeable separation insert 6 about a rotational axis 20 extending in an axial direction, wherein the exchangeable separation insert 6 comprises a rotor casing 82 configured to rotate
about the rotational axis 20 and forming a separation space 88 and a first stationary portion 86 arranged at a first axial end portion of the rotor casing 82 and comprising at least one fluid connection 96 for the liquid feed mixture, wherein the drive arrangement 18 comprises an entrainment member 16 through which a portion of the exchangeable separation insert 6 comprising the first stationary portion 86 extends, wherein the entrainment member 16 is mounted in the stationary frame 8 and engages with the rotor casing 82.
Fig. 4 discloses the conduits 10 for conducting the liquid feed mixture and the separated heavy and light phases, i.e. the fluid connections 94, 96, 98 (equivalent to "at least one fluid connection for one of the liquid feed mixture, the heavy phase, and the light phase"). The exchangeable separation insert (6) comprises a second stationary portion (20) arranged at a second axial end portion (22) of the rotor casing (8) can be determined based on actual conditions. Enclosing member/lid 54 is configured to enclose and engage with the exchangeable separation insert 6. The base unit 4 comprises an engagement member 62 arranged at the fourth opening 60, wherein, the engagement member 62 is configured to engage with a portion of the exchangeable separation insert 6. The base unit 4 comprises at least one bearing 36, wherein, the rotatable member 16 is journalled in the stationary frame 8 via the at least
one bearing 36.
Claim 8 is directed to an exchangeable separation insert (6) for a modular centrifugal separator system (2) while EP ‘394 discloses a modular centrifugal separator and base unit thereof and system, namely, an exchangeable separation
insert for a modular centrifugal separator system, and wherein the exchangeable
separation insert 6 comprising a rotor casing 82 configured to rotate about a rotational axis extending in an axial direction and forming a separation space 88, a first stationary portion 86 arranged at a first axial end portion of the rotor casing 82, and a second stationary portion 84 arranged at a second axial end portion of the rotor casing 82, the first and second stationary portions (86, 84) comprising connections for a liquid feed mixture, a separated heavy phase, and a separated light phase. The seals 104 form mechanical seals between the stationary portions 84, 86 and the rotor casing 82.
EP 3666394 does not disclose the recited axial extension of the entrainment member or the degree or percentage to which the rotor casing is supported in the entrainment member.
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 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 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 apparatus defined by the disclosure of EP ‘394 with the configurations and/or dimensions 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 dimensions 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 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, the only difference between EP ‘394 and the claimed invention is that the wall 32 and a part of another conical wall 68 is missing in claim 1. It is not clear what a role plays removing of the mentioned parts. In view of Figure 4 of EP ‘394 where the insert 6 and the frame 8 are firmly connected by the threaded engagement member 62 and the threaded bottom stationary part 86 as well as by a firm connection of the top stationary part 84 and the housing 52, 54, it appears that the main task of the rotatable member 16 is to drive the insert 6 with its conical wall 68. One skilled in the art is clearly aware beforehand that removing the vertical wall 32 as well as a part of the conical part 68 (at least a part of the conical wall is necessary to drive the insert) preserves the full function of the device of EP ‘394 but with an axially smaller entrainment member having less mass.
Furthermore, EP ‘394 thus discloses all of the recited subject matter including an entrainment member possessing a certain axial extent but does not explicitly show said 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, as claimed. Accordingly, in view of the showings of EP ‘394, it would have been obvious and mere common sense to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant's invention was made, to have modified the entrainment member in EP ‘394 to be of any desired axial extent or any desired degree or percentage to which the rotor casing is supported in the entrainment member since “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinarily skill has good reasons to purse the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR Int’l. Co, v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, the known options of forming the entrainment member to be of cerain size within the various, yet finite, axial extent of the modular separator system of EP ‘394 including within the broad ranges present in the claims, does not rise to the level of novelty or nonobviousness but is considered merely a consequence of ordinary skill and common sense, rendering the claimed subject matter wholly obvious over the prior art.
It is further argued that Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired: Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient). In this instance, to reduce or omit: (a) a portion of the axial extent to which the entrainment member encompasses the axial extension of the entrainment member or (b) the degree or percentage to which the rotor casing is supported in the entrainment member yet still enable positive driving of the rotor casing about an axis exudes evidence that such omission is obvious.
And reducing the argument to a change is size or proportion of the entrainment member, from In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). And in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Since an entrainment member within the scope of the claimed invention does not perform differently or in a superior manner to the entrainment member of EP ‘394, the claimed entrainment member is not patentably distinct from the prior art device to EP ‘394.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3666394 in view of KEUNEN et al. (US 4824929).
EP 3666394 discloses the recited subject matter of claims 16-20 as explained above but does not disclose the rotor casing being formed of plastic or the fiber reinforced rings located about the rotor casing (claims 2, 3, 9, and 10).
KEUNEN et al. discloses a centrifuge rotor casing 1 formed of plastic material and including fiber reinforcement rings 7-10 composed of fiber reinforced material that are located about the rotor casing 1.
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 ‘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 rotor wherein the body of the rotor is constituted by a cap-shaped frame of synthetic plastics material wherein the rotor is surrounded on its radially outer periphery by reinforcing rings or a reinforcing envelope, constituted by substantially tangentially-oriented long fibers of suitable material to thereby prevent localized high stresses in the material, to keep the rotor light in weight, which promotes its wieldability and because the frame is made of synthetic plastics material, which has a lower density than the metal of the known rotors, the rotor weight is reduced still further. In order that the rotor according to the present invention should be capable of attaining high centrifugal accelerations, the frame is provided on its radially outer periphery with reinforcing rings or a reinforcing envelope made of substantially tangentially-oriented long synthetic plastics fibres. Preferably, the envelope or each ring is constituted one fibre or only a few fibres wound substantially tangentially or at a small angle and embedded in matrix material, so that up to 70-80% of the ring or envelope consists of fibre material. Suitable fibres are fibres of carbon, glass, aramide and the like. When long fibres are oriented in a given direction, fibre-reinforced synthetic plastics material partly composed thereof has aniostropic properties.
Thus, in this centrifuge rotor, a low modulus of elasticity of the frame relative to the high modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing rings or envelope ensures a low stress in the frame and a high stress in said rings or envelope, so that the construction, as regards stress, is loaded uniformly. The high modulus of elasticity of rings or envelope limits so to say the elongation of the less strong parts of the frame. Suitably, the reinforcing rings or envelope can be constructed in such a manner that they exhibit a stepped configuration on the radially outer surface of the sidewall of the frame. In such a stepped configuration, with contact surfaces normal to the axis of rotation, the ring or envelope not subject to forces directed away from the frame and rings or envelope are held firmly secured to the frame during rotation of the rotor. The rings or envelope are/is preferably secured to the frame by means of gluing or shrinking, thereby further increasing the solidity of the construction. This applies both to a frame with a stepped outer wall and to a skeleton with a smooth outer wall. As a result of the suitable construction of the rotor of the centrifuge according to the present invention, in conjunction with the suitable choice of the material to be employed therein, the weight of the rotor relative to the known solid metal rotors is reduced by approximately a factor 3, so that the handling is considerably better. As, moreover, the polar mass moment of inertia will likewise be approximately a factor 3 smaller than of the known rotor, the run-up and run-down times can be substantially shortened. The maximally attainable centrifugal acceleration in the apparatus according to the present invention is appreciably higher than in the known apparatus. Rotation speeds about 10% higher than in the known apparatuses can be reached.
FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional and perspective view of a part of the rotor of an embodiment of the centrifuge according to the present invention. The rotor comprises a cap-shaped frame 1 of a suitable synthetic plastics material, e.g. polycarbonate, polyamide or acetal or another suitable thermoplastic or thermosetting material, preferably reinforced by incorporation therein of randomly distributed and randomly oriented short fibres. By "cap-shaped", it is meant that the rotor has a generally disk-shaped top or end wall from the radially outer periphery of which a skirt or sidewall depends. In the illustrated embodiments, the skirt is of a downwardly-flaring tubular form. The frame 1 further comprises a central portion 1a extending substantially longitudinally from a base on the inner side of the disk-shaped end wall of the frame 1, and provided with a suitable longitudinal bore 2 directed and extending along the axis of the frame which, in operation, receives a drive shaft coupled to the motor of the centrifuge. The manner in which the rotor of the centrifuge according to the present invention is driven and is connected to the drive shaft corresponds with the drive of known rotors and is not further described herein.
The upper end wall 1b is shown being externally flat, and the sidewall 1c is shown flaring downwardly so that its free end is located radially outwardly beyond the radially outer periphery of the end wall 1b. The upper end wall 1b has socket-like face contains holes 3,4,5, which are provided as cavities opening through the top face 1b and extending within the side wall 1c. In operation, vessels or containers containing liquid to be examined can be arranged in these socket-like holes or cavities 3,4,5. The holes or cavities are uniformly distributed angularly of the frame 1, in its sidewall 1c in such a manner that, in any plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the rotor, the centers of the transverse cross sections of the holes in the plane are the form the apices of an imaginary regular polygon. Holes 3,4,5 are internally provided with a layer 6, forming, for each hole, a respective liner in the respective hole. Layer 6 in each hole may, for example, be a tube made of a suitable material, e.g. stainless steel or titanium in a thickness of 0.5 mm, which may or may not be surrounded by an additional reinforcing layer of synthetic plastics material, reinforced with fibres extending unidirectionally, e.g. tangentially around the tube. Each tube is provided with an open end and a closed end. The layer 6, if consisting only of e.g. stainless steel, serves mainly as a chemical barrier, so that the rotor is not attacked by liquids from the vessels to be placed in the holes. An additonal layer of synthetic plastics material reinforced with unidirectionally oriented fibres having a thickness of e.g. 2 mm, if used, imparts substantial strength to the wall of the holes 3,4,5, so that, in operation, collapse of the frame and tube material surrounding the holes due to the high speed rotation of the rotor is prevented.
FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, show that the radially inner surface of the sidewall 1c of frame 1 has a wavy (i.e. an underlating) configuration in the circumferential direction, with the holes or cavities 3,4,5, together with the layers 6, always being fully surrounded by the material of wall 1c and the wall 1c extending axially beyond and thereby closing a respective inner end of each cavity 3, 4, 5. On the exterior, the wall 1c is surrounded by a plurality of stepped reinforcing rings 7,8,9,10. Rings 7-10, secured by gluing or shrinking to the likewise stepped exterior of wall portion 1c of frame 1, each is made of substantially tangentially oriented long fibres of suitable material, e.g. carbon, glass, aramide or the like, embedded in a synthetic plastics matrix material. Preferably, each ring consists of one or only a few fibres which are wound substantially tangentially or at a small angle. As much as 80% of the thus-formed plastics material reinforced with unidirectionally-oriented fibres may consist of fibres.
FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of another embodiment of the rotor of the centrifuge according to the present invention. The embodiment shown is a fixed-angle rotor having a "smooth" outer surface. Identical parts are indicated by the same reference numerals in FIGS. 1-3. Thus the rotor shown in FIG. 3 comprises a frame 1 of fibre-reinforced synthetic plastics material having a central portion 1a and a wall portion 1c. Central portion 1a contains the throughbore 2 for a drive shaft (not shown).
Extending from its top, a plurality of holes is provided in the frame, which are uniformly distributed over the frame, each making the same fixed angle with the axis of the body of frame 1. The figure shows the hole 5, which is lined with a layer 6 of stainless steel about 0.5 mm thick. The frame 1 has a smooth radially outer wall on the periphery, this outer wall being surrounded by the envelope 11, which is made of substantially tangentially oriented long fibres of a suitable material embedded in synthetic plastics material. The envelope 11 is secured to frame 1 by means of suitable jointing techniques e.g. gluing. As shown, envelope 11 has a conical surface form and envelope 11 rests with its upper edge against a flanged part 12 of the frame 1. The figure shows a straight, smooth envelope 11. It will be clear that other envelope forms are also conceivable. In a manufacturing method wherein the envelope is formed by direct winding around the frame, the envelope may, for instance, have a different form and conform to the shape of the frame to a greater extent. The rotor of the centrifuge according to the present invention can be constructed so as to have desired dimensions.
- per the SUMMARY and DETAILED DESCRIPTION of KEUNEN et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses modular centrifuge systems and fiber reinforced centrifuge rotors.
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: 6 MAY 2026
Prosecution Insights