DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 September 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 1-8, 10, 11, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipiro (US 2022/0111340) in view of Irvine (US 779,783).
Regarding claim 1, Shipiro discloses a laboratory instrument including a support body (46); a main component (58, 66 and/or 42) which is movable with respect to the support body for mixing; a mixing drive mechanism (38) disposed on the support body, with a drive device (44, 48, 50), a first eccentric (52) and a second eccentric (54) which can be driven by means of the drive device and which are configured in order to transmit a driving force produced by the drive device to the main component; and at least one counterbalancing mass (64) to at least partially compensate for an imbalance produced by the first eccentric, the second eccentric and the main component; wherein the first eccentric and the second eccentric are disposed on a peripheral edge of the support body and outside a central region of the support body (see Fig. 6); wherein the first eccentric and the second eccentric are disposed on mutually opposite side edges of the support body and are laterally offset with respect to each other, or the first eccentric is disposed in a first corner of the support body and the second eccentric is disposed in a second corner of the support body (see Fig. 6); and wherein the counterbalancing mass is attached to at least one of the first eccentric and the second eccentric (see Fig. 6), and is disposed between the support body and the main component (see Figs. 5 and 6) and is configured to carry out a movement upon mixing which is counter to that of the main component (see Figs. 5 and 6). However, a tilting function of the swivel support is not disclosed. Irvine teaches a swivel support (13) having formed for providing a spatially limited staggering movement by a combination of rotation and tilting for supporting a main component (see Fig. 3 and page 1 line 92 to page 2 line 9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the swivel support taught by Irvine, to allow free movement (see page 1 line 92 to page 2 line 9 of Irvine).
Regarding claim 2, a cavity is formed in the central region (of "58" and of "66").
Regarding claim 3, the support body (46) includes an opening (between 54 and 56; see Fig. 6), on mutually opposite sides (from the bottom side through to the top side) through which cooling fluid such as air can pass to the cavity.
Regarding claim 4, a cavity is formed in the central region in which at least a portion of a cooling body (66) attached to an underside of the main component is received.
Regarding claim 5, the upper surface of a thermal coupling plate (42) on the main component forms a loading surface forms a loading surface.
Regarding claim 6, the underside of a thermal coupling plate (42) is coupled to the cooling body.
Regarding claim 7, an annular closed first force-transmitting mechanism (48) for transmitting the driving force from the drive device (150) to the first eccentric is disclosed.
Regarding claim 8, the at least one counterbalancing mass is asymmetrically attached to the drive device (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, the bottom of the at least one swivel support is mounted in at least one first depression in the support body (see Figs. 3, 6 and 7 and [0045]) and the top is mounted in at least one second depression (60) in the main component.
Regarding claim 11, at least one first counterplate is or are disposed on the support body in physical contact with a bottom surface of the at least one swivel support and/or at least one second counterplate is or are disposed on the main component in physical contact with a top surface of the at least one swivel support (see Fig. 3 and [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, the swivel support taught by Irvine has broadened top and bottom portions and a pin disposed between the top and bottom portions (see Fig. 3 and page 1 line 92 to page 2 line 9).
Regarding claim 15, Irvine further teaches the top and bottom of the swivel support being spherical (see Fig. 3 and page 1 line 92 to page 2 line 9).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the radii of the spheres to achieve a desired degree of support and movement.
Regarding claim 18, three swivel supports (52,54,56) are disclosed.
Claims 12, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipiro (US 2022/0111340) in view of Irvine (US 779,783) as applied above and further in view of Erdenberger (US 2014/0349385):
Regarding claim 12, Shipiro does not disclose the counterplate being ceramic. Erdenberger teaches a counterplate being ceramic (see [0100], [0101] and [0186]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized ceramic for the counterplate to realize the corrosion resist and low friction benefits explained by Erdenberger in [0100], [0101] and [0186].
Regarding claim 13, both Shipiro and Erdenberger teach the counterplate being for rolling friction interaction (see [0045] of Shipiro and [0100], [0101] and [0186] of Erdenberger).
Regarding claim 17, Shipiro does not disclose the swivel support being plastic. Erdenberger explains that plastic provides the benefits of corrosion resistance, low weight and cost (see [0092] and [0100]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized plastic to for the benefit of corrosion resistance, low weight and cost as explained by Erdenberger (see [0092] and [0100]).
Response to Arguments
As currently amended, no claim is rejected under section 112.
Both Shipiro and Irvine concern bearings for movably supporting a platform, and therefore are pertinent to the problem being solved by the instant application.
Concerning Irvine, applicant incorrectly states “connection 13 that maintains concentric alignment between the support body and base”. Instead, in Irvine, Fig. 1 as well as the phantom lines of Fig. 2 depict non-concentric positions.
Irvine states “supporting member 9 is so poised that it may be tilted freely in any direction”. The tilting is only limited when “C” contacts table 2. As seen in Figs. 1 and 2, the center of mass of “C” is free to orbit in a horizontal plane. This orbital motion is entirely applicable to Shipiro.
As held by the US Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results" and “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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 X 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights