FINAL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, Applicant requests that the rejection be held in abeyance pending the disposition of allowable subject matter in the present and copending applications (page 7, Remarks). The provisional rejection is therefore maintained.
Regarding the claim interpretation under 35 USC §112(f) for claims 23 and 28, the applicant’s argument that “the word ‘means’ is recited along with sufficient associated structural features to obviate interpretation under 35 USC §112(f)” (page 8, Remarks) is not persuasive. The associated features surrounding the “drive means” in claims 23 and 28 are mostly functional and relational, not structural limitations relating to the drive means itself.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argues that “Yamada’s magnetic elements control test tube holder orientation, unrelated to physical coupling” (page 12, Remarks), and that “[i]mplementing the claimed magnetic coupling would require a complete redesign of Takibana’s rotor and mounting system” (page 12, Remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamada teaches that magnets can be used on the rotor to releasably hold a vessel holder in place, and a structure that magnetically fixes a vessel holder in a desired position also physically couples and releasably secures that holder, which meets the claimed limitation of releasably securing the reaction vessel unit by coupling with a counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit. While Yamada’s test tube holder (corresponds to the reaction vessel unit/carrier) tilts into the magnetic coupling position and Takibana’s reaction vessel unit slides into the magnetic coupling position, one of ordinary skill in the art would still see the magnetic coupling concept as transferable without changing Takibana’s basic operation. Yamada does not need to disclose a horizontal axis microplate rotor identical to Takibana’s. Yamada is relied upon for the known use of rotor mounted magnetic coupling to releasably hold a vessel holder in a desired position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the same magnetic coupling configuration could be used in Takibana in place of its spring retention to achieve the predictable result of releasably securing the reaction vessel unit/carrier on the rotor, regardless of the shape of the holder or the rotational axis orientation. It has been held that “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference…Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Applicant further argues that Lattanzi does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Takibana and Yamada, because Lattanzi’s magnet is part of an external loading mechanism used before and after centrifugation rather than a magnet on the rotor during spinning (pages 12-13, Remarks). This argument is not persuasive because Lattanzi is not relied upon to teach the magnetic coupling on the rotor side in claim 19, but is relied upon to teach the specific loading/unloading beam and magnetic coupling features recited in claims 23-28, 37, 38, and 40-43.
The rejections over Takibana in view of Yamada and other cited references of record are therefore still deemed valid and are maintained.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/243644, filed on 9 January 2019.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-27, 29-43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-24, 26-27, 36-39, 41-43, and 46-51 of copending Application No. 18/408845 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets claim the same structures for a centrifuge comprising a rotor, plate tray, loading beam, and magnetic couplings.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are: drive means in claim 23 and 28. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19-22 and 29, 30, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009264927 (Takibana et al., hereinafter Takibana) in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0318755).
Regarding claim 19, Takibana discloses a centrifuge comprising for cleaning a reaction vessel unit in which a plurality of reaction vessels are arranged in a two-dimensional array and the reaction vessels each have at least one opening (Fig. 1), wherein the centrifuge comprises: a housing (cover 102, Fig. 1); and a rotor (rotary drum 101; Fig. 1) arranged within the housing, wherein the rotor is configured to rotate about a horizontal rotation axis (rotation center axis 101a); and to hold the reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1) such that the at least one opening of each reaction vessel is directed radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (as shown in Fig. 9); and wherein the rotor (rotary drum 101, Fig. 1) comprises a first coupling element (“leaf spring”, para. [0029] of English translation filed with IDS on 8 March 2024) for releasably securing the reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1), but does not disclose the coupling element is magnetic and couples with a counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier.
Yamada discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the rotor (2, Fig. 1) comprises a first magnetic coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1) to releasably secure the reaction vessel unit (test tube holder 3, Fig. 1) or the reaction vessel unit carrier by coupling with a counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier (the test tube holder 3, which corresponds to the reaction vessel unit, is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element, para. [0054]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of Takibana with the type of coupling element and counter-coupling element as taught by Yamada for the purpose of locking the holders in position on the rotor (Abstract). This modification constitutes a simple substitution of one known coupling mechanism (a spring) with another known mechanism (magnetic coupling) to achieve the predictable result of releasably securing the reaction vessel unit, consistent with KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), Rationale B.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein the first magnetic coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada) is provided at a rear side of the rotor (bottom side of the rotor of Yamada) opposite to a side of the rotor where the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier can be inserted into the rotor (top side of the rotor of Yamada).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein the rotor comprises a stopper provided at a rear side of the rotor opposite to a side of the rotor where the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier can be inserted into the rotor (the rear wall of the holding part 104 acts as the stopper, see annotated Fig. 1 of Takibana below).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein the stopper comprises the first magnetic coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein the rotor comprises a first receiving area (holding part 104, Fig. 1) for receiving the reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein the rotor further comprises a second receiving area (four holding parts 104 shown in Fig. 3, Takibana) for receiving one of the reaction vessel unit, wherein the first and second receiving areas are arranged diametrically opposite with respect to the horizontal rotation axis (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein respective plate trays (holding part 104, Takibana) are configured such that the reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Takibana) can slide into the respective plate tray or out of the respective plate tray (as shown in Fig. 8, Takibana).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses wherein the platform (stage 105, Fig. 1, Takibana) of the centrifuge includes a surface oriented parallel to the rotation axis of the rotor and arranged to support the reaction vessel unit during loading and unloading of the reaction vessel into and out of the rotor.
Claims 23-28, 37, 38, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takibana in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Lattanzi (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0087426).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Takibana and Yamada discloses a loading mechanism for loading and unloading the centrifuge (stage 105, 105a guide member, transport part 105b, elevating mechanism 106, Fig. 1) with the reaction vessel unit; wherein the loading mechanism comprises a beam (transport part 105b) for extending and retracting the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier and a drive means for extending and retracting the beam (“piston operated by hydraulic pressure or pneumatic pressure, a motor, a rack, a pinion provided on an arm for pushing out”, para. [0029] of English translation filed with IDS on 8 March 2024), but does not disclose wherein the bream in its extended state extends through a centrifuge section comprising the housing and the rotor arranged in the housing and is removed from the centrifuge section in its retracted state so that the rotor can rotate freely.
Lattanzi discloses an analogous art relating to a centrifuge wherein the loading mechanism (vertical actuator 15; Fig. 2) comprises a beam (actuator rod 15’; Fig. 2) configured to couple with the reaction vessel unit (bucket 30; Fig. 1) or the reaction vessel unit carrier, the beam being movable to extend and retract the reaction vessel unit (see Fig. 1 for retracted state and Fig. 2 for extended state), and a motor (electric motor; para. [0022]) coupled with the beam to extend and retract the beam, wherein the beam in its extended state extends through a centrifuge section comprising the rotor (rotating head 11; Fig. 1) and a rotor housing (centrifuging chamber 10; Fig. 1) arranged within the outer housing (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and is removed from the centrifuge section in its retracted state so that the rotor can rotate freely (see retracted state in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of Takibana and Yamada with the loading mechanism of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses wherein a second magnetic coupling element (permanent magnet 17, Lattanzi) is provided at a free end of the beam (actuator rod 15’, Fig. 2, Lattanzi) to couple with the reaction vessel unit (bucket 30, Fig. 1, Lattanzi); wherein the second magnetic coupling element is configured to be coupled with the counter-coupling element (magnet 34, Fig. 2A, Lattanzi) of the reaction vessel unit (bucket 30, Fig. 1, Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the second magnetic coupling element (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a, Lattanzi) provided at the free end of the beam is configured to decouple from the reaction vessel unit when the reaction vessel unit abuts the stopper (in Lattanzi, the trunnions or pivots of the rotating head acts as the stopper, located at axis a in Fig. 2; when lugs 33 of the buckets 30 come in contact and rest upon the trunnions or pivots of the rotating head 11, the buckets will disengage with the actuator rod 15’; para. [0037] and [0033]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the counter-coupling element (the test tube holder 3, which corresponds to the reaction vessel unit, is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element, para. [0054], Yamada) is configured to couple with the stopper (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada) upon decoupling from the second magnetic coupling (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a, Lattanzi) element provided at the free end of the beam (actuator rod 15’, Fig. 2, Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the housing comprises an opening (see opening in housing cover 19 in Fig. 1, Lattanzi) for loading and unloading the centrifuge with the reaction vessel unit; and wherein a drive means (electric motor, para. [0022], Lattanzi) of the loading mechanism is arranged at a side of the rotor opposite the opening, wherein the beam (actuator rod 15’; Fig. 2, Lattanzi) in its extended state extends out of the rotor and the opening (see extended state in Fig. 2, Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses a reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1, Takibana) for use with a centrifuge according to claim 24, the reaction vessel unit comprising a plurality of reaction vessels (wells 201b, Fig. 4, Takibana) arranged in a two-dimensional array, a counter-coupling element (magnet 34, Fig. 2A, Lattanzi) arranged to couple with at least one magnetic coupling element selected from the group consisting of the second magnetic coupling element (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a, Lattanzi) at the free end of the beam and the first magnetic coupling element comprised by the rotor.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses a reaction vessel unit carrier (see annotated Fig. 4 of Takibana below) for use with a centrifuge according to claim 24, the reaction vessel unit carrier being configured to releasably carry a reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 4, Takibana) comprising a plurality of reaction vessels (wells 201b, Fig. 4, Takibana) arranged in a two-dimensional array, wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier comprises a counter-coupling element (the test tube holder 3, which corresponds to the reaction vessel unit carrier, is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element; para. [0054], Yamada) arranged to couple with at least one magnetic coupling element selected from the group consisting of the second magnetic coupling element at the free end of the beam and the first magnetic coupling element comprised by the rotor (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses a system for cleaning a reaction vessel unit, comprising a centrifuge according to claim 24 as discussed above; and at least one reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 4, Takibana) comprising a plurality of reaction vessels (wells 201b, Fig. 4, Takibana) arranged in a two-dimensional array, the reaction vessels each having at least one opening; wherein the rotor of the centrifuge is configured to hold the at least one reaction vessel unit with its at least one opening directed radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (as shown in Fig. 9, Takibana).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the at least one reaction vessel unit (bucket 30, Fig. 1, Lattanzi) comprises a counter-coupling element (magnet 34, Fig. 2A, Lattanzi) arranged to couple with at least one magnetic coupling element selected from the group consisting of the second magnetic coupling element at the free end of the beam (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a, Lattanzi) and the first magnetic coupling element comprised by the rotor.
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses one or more reaction vessel unit carriers (see annotated Fig. 4 of Takibana; also test tube holder 3, Yamada) configured to releasably carry the at least one reaction vessel unit and to be held by the rotor.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi discloses wherein at least one of the one or more reaction vessel unit carriers (test tube holder 3, Yamada) comprises a counter-coupling element (the test tube holder 3, which corresponds to the reaction vessel unit carrier, is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element; para. [0054], Yamada) arranged to couple with at least one magnetic coupling element selected from the group consisting of the second magnetic coupling element at the free end of the beam and the first magnetic coupling element comprised by the rotor (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada).
Claims 31, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takibana in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of BlueCatBio Exhibit 1004 (Non-patent Literature Documents Cite No. 7 of IDS filed on 8 March 2024, hereinafter Exhibit 1004) as described in the Petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,338,063 (Non-patent Literature Documents Cite No. 33 of IDS on 8 March 2024, hereinafter the Petition).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, the combination of Takibana and Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first receiving area is formed by a plate tray defined by a rectangular base wall and two U-shaped rails; wherein the first and second receiving areas are each formed by a plate tray defined by a rectangular base wall and two U-shaped rails.
Exhibit 1004 discloses the Gyro Washer (which according to the Petition, was in public use at trade shows in 2009 and 2010), an analogous art related to a centrifuge for cleaning microplates, wherein the first receiving area is formed by a plate tray defined by a rectangular base wall and two U-shaped rails (see annotated Fig. 4 below); wherein the first and second receiving areas are each formed by a plate tray defined by a rectangular base wall and two U-shaped rails (see annotated Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of Takibana and Yamada with the plate tray configuration disclosed by Exhibit 1004 for the purpose of holding microplates for washing.
PNG
media_image3.png
666
916
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Exhibit 1004 discloses wherein respective base walls of the two plate trays are parallel to each other (see annotated Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004), and each respective U-shaped rail comprises a base shank (see annotated Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004) and an inner side shank (see annotated Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004) mounted on the base wall, and further an outer side shank (see annotated Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004) spaced apart from the base wall, wherein the respective base shanks are arranged perpendicular to the respective base wall and the respective side shanks extend from the respective base shank in a direction toward a center of the rotor, such that the respective U-shaped rails are arranged opposite with their open sides (see annotated Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Exhibit 1004 discloses wherein the respective distance of the respective outer side shank to the respective inner side shank or the respective base wall is designed such that a reaction vessel unit or a reaction vessel unit carrier is held with play in the radial direction (since the microplate of Exhibit 1004 is designed to be placed into and removed from the plate trays, it is inherent and necessary that there is sufficient play or gap in the groove to allow for such movements).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takibana in view of Yamada, further in view of Lattanzi, as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Piramoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0184578, hereinafter Piramoon).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi does not disclose wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier comprises a rectangular frame having side edges and rims at the side edges, wherein the rims have at least one feature selected from the group consisting of respective upper surfaces of the rims being tilted inwards, and the rims being non-continuous along the side edges.
Piramoon discloses analogous art relating to a centrifuge, wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier (supporting carrier 14; Fig. 2E) comprises a rectangular frame having side edges and rims at the side edges (outer side walls 70a, 70b, 70c, 70d; Fig. 2E), wherein the rims have at least one feature selected from the group consisting of respective upper surfaces of the rims being tilted inwards, and the rims being non-continuous along the side edges (see annotated partial 2E below). It would have been further obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifuge of the combination of Takibana, Yamada, and Lattanzi with the reaction vessel unit carrier configuration taught by Piramoon for the purpose of receiving and supporting microplates in the carrier (para. [0025], Piramoon).
PNG
media_image4.png
504
573
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights