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
In view of the claim amendment and Applicant remarks filed 6 November 2025, the rejection of claims 19-27 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takibana is withdrawn.
However, the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “[s]ince Exhibit 1004 does not disclose a plate tray comprising a base wall, it also does not disclose rail members which include an inner side shank mounted to a base wall of a plate try, an outer side shank spaced apart from the base wall, and a base shank arranged perpendicular to the base wall, with the inner and outer side shanks of the rail extending from the base shank of the rail as claimed” (page 14, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rail structure recited in claim 19 is clearly shown in Exhibit 1004, which depicts a rotor structure including a pair of U-shaped rails configured to receive opposite edges of a microplate. As shown in the photographs (see annotated figures of the Gyro Washer in the rejection below), the guide channel members correspond to the claimed U-shaped rails, each including a base shank, an inner side shank, and an outer side shank. The pair of rails are arranged with their open sides facing each other such that a microplate may slide between the rails during insertion and removal. Exhibit 1004 does not explicitly show a base wall supporting the microplate. However, Takibana teaches a centrifuge rotor having a holding part 104 including a bottom surface beneath a microplate (Fig. 3 and 8). The bottom surface corresponds to the claimed base wall. The claim does not require the base wall to be part of a removable plate tray. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rail structure and rotor of Exhibit 1004 with a supporting base wall as taught by Takibana for the purpose of providing structural support for the plate tray holding a reaction vessel unit during centrifugation. Such a modification merely combines known structural elements performing the same functions they had been known to perform and would have yielded predictable results, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationale A. Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana is 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8 March 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19-23, 25-27, 31 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) in view of Takibana.
Regarding claim 19, Exhibit 1004 shows 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 (see annotated Fig. 4 below), comprising a housing; a rotor arranged inside the housing, the rotor being configured to rotate about a horizontal rotation axis; wherein the rotor comprises a plate tray configured to releasably hold a reaction vessel unit with a plurality of reaction vessels arranged in a two-dimensional array (see annotated Fig. 8 below); and wherein the plate tray comprises a pair of U-shaped rails and having open sides facing one another (see annotated Fig. 4 below), wherein each U-shaped rail comprises a base shank and an inner side shank, and an outer side shank, wherein the respective base shanks are arranged perpendicular to the respective base wall (corresponding to the base surface of the microplate) and the respective inner and outer side shanks extend from the respective base shank in the direction to the center of the rotor, such that the U-shaped rails are arranged with their open sides opposite (see annotated Fig. 4 of Exhibit 1004), but does not show the plate tray comprises a base wall, and the base shank and an inner side shank mounted on the base wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
634
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takibana discloses analogous art related to a reagent disposal centrifuge for microplates, wherein the plate tray (holding part 104, Fig. 1) configured to releasably hold a reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1) with a plurality of reaction vessels arranged in a two-dimensional array, wherein the plate tray comprises a base wall (see annotated Fig. 3 below). 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 rail structure and rotor of Exhibit 1004 with a supporting base wall as taught by Takibana in order to provide structural support for the plate tray holding a reaction vessel unit during centrifugation. When the rail structure of Exhibit 1004 is provided on the support base wall of Takibana, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange or secure the base shank and the inner side shank of the rail on the base wall, thereby meeting the claimed limitation that the base shank and inner side shank are mounted on the base wall.
PNG
media_image3.png
651
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the reaction vessels each include an opening and wherein the plate tray is configured to hold the reaction vessel unit with the openings of the reaction vessels directly radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (Fig. 5, Exhibit 1004; the Petition describes the Gyro Washer’s rotating assembly is designed to secure microplates with their openings directed outwardly, page 73).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the rotor comprises two plate trays including the plate tray, the two plate tray arranged diametrically opposite with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein both of the plate trays comprise a base wall and a pair of U-shaped rails attached to the base wall and having open sides facing one another (Fig. 4, Exhibit 1004; Fig. 3, Takibana).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the base walls (see annotated Fig. 3, Takibana) of the two plate trays are parallel to each other (Fig. 3, Takibana).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the reaction vessels each include an opening, and wherein the plate tray is configured to hold the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier with the opening of the reaction vessels directed radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (Fig. 5, Exhibit 1004; the Petition describes the Gyro Washer’s rotating assembly is designed to secure microplates with their openings directed outwardly, page 73), and wherein the outer shanks are configured to not cover any reaction vessels of the reaction vessel unit (as shown in Fig. 9, main surface of microplate 2011a is not covered by the groove 104a, Takibana).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the plate tray is configured to allow the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier to slide into the plate tray and out of the plate tray (Fig. 8, Takibana; the rails are arranged such that the microplate may slide between the rails during insertion and removal, Fig. 4 and 8, Exhibit 1004).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the U-shaped rails are designed to receive the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier with a small play between the U-shaped rails and the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel carrier in the radial direction relative to the rotation axis (a small play is inherent in both Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, since the microplate is designed to slide in and out of the groove/rails, the rails must necessarily be dimensioned such that clearance or play exists between the edges of the microplate and the rails).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the rotor has a central bore, the central bore and the axis of rotation being concentric (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
663
841
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 41, Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses the centrifuge according to claim 19. Takibana further discloses wherein a stopper is provided at a rear side of the base wall to abut the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier (the rear wall of the holding part 104 acts as the stopper, see annotated Fig. 1 of Takibana below). 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 modified Exhibit 1004 with the stopper taught by Takibana for the purpose of securing the position of the reaction vessel unit on the holding part/plate tray of the rotor.
PNG
media_image5.png
505
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Piramoon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,738,656, hereafter Piramoon).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses the respective plate trays (holding part 104, Fig. 1, Takibana) and sections of the rotor (rotary drum 101, Fig. 1, Takibana) connecting the plate trays are made of a single piece (Fig. 3, Takibana), but does not disclose it is made of a single piece of aluminum.
Piramoon discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge rotor, wherein the rotor is made from aluminum (col. 1 lines 31-39). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the rotor including the plate trays of the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana from aluminum as taught by Piramoon for the purpose of generating less physical stress and lower kinetic energy during centrifugation(col. 1 lines 31-39).
Claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Potter (U.S. Patent No. 5,484,381).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana does not disclose wherein a plurality of bores are formed through the base wall.
Potter discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein a plurality of bores (holes 34, Fig. 1) are formed through the base wall (surface of the rotor 10S, 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 Exhibit 1004 and Takibana with the bores as taught by Potter for the purpose of reducing mass, and therefore, the inertia of the rotor, which improves rotor acceleration and/or deceleration (col. 5 lines 46-54).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Potter discloses wherein the base wall (see annotated Fig. 3 above; Takibana) includes a central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 1 of Takibana below) parallel to the horizontal rotational axis (rotation center axis 101a; Fig. 1; Takibana), and wherein the plurality of bores (holes 34; see annotated Fig. 1 of Potter below) comprise first and second sets of bores on opposite sides of the central longitudinal axis (since Fig. 1 of Potter shows a symmetric half of the centrifuge rotor, it is assumed that the other half of the rotor comprises a second set of bores 34 on the opposite side of the longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image5.png
505
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
714
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Potter discloses wherein the rotor (10, Fig. 1, Potter) has a central bore (10L, Fig. 1, Potter), the central bore and the axis of rotation (A, Fig. 1, Potter) being concentric (see Fig. 1, Potter).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Potter discloses wherein the rotor (rotary drum 101, Takibana; rotor 10, Potter) is rotationally symmetrical (Fig. 1, Takibana; Fig. 1; Potter).
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Adey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0200021, hereafter Adey).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana does not disclose the rotor further comprising a counterweight, wherein the plate tray and the counterweight are arranged diametrically opposite with respect to the horizontal rotation axis.
Adey discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, the rotor further comprising a counterweight (21, Fig. 2), wherein the plate tray (slide carrier 16, Fig. 2) and the counterweight are arranged diametrically opposite with respect to the rotation axis (see Fig. 2). 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 Exhibit 1004 and Takibana with a counterweight as taught by Adey for the purpose of balancing the slide carrier and can be adjusted according to a number of slides carried within the slide carrier (para. [0025], Adey).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Adey discloses wherein the counterweight (21, Fig. 2, Adey) is an adjustable counterweight (para. [0038], Adey).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to 19 above, and further in view of Leach et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0284460, hereafter Leach).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana does not disclose the rotor further comprising a counterweight, wherein the plate tray and the counterweight are arranged diametrically opposite with respect to the horizontal rotation axis.
Leach discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, the rotor further comprising a counterweight (counterweight container 322, Fig. 20), wherein the fractionation system 10 (corresponds to a plate tray) and the counterweight are arranged diametrically opposite with respect to the rotation axis (para. [0074], Fig. 20). 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 Exhibit 1004 and Takibana with a counterweight as taught by Leach for the purpose of centrifuge balance (para. [0074], Leach).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Leach discloses wherein the counterweight 322 is a fixed counterweight (para. [0074], Fig. 20, Leach).
Claims 36-39, 42 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0318755).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses wherein the rotor (rotary drum 101, Fig. 1, Takibana) comprises a coupling element (“leaf spring”, para. [0029] of English translation filed with IDS on 8 March 2024, Takibana) for releasably securing the reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1, Takibana), but does not disclose the coupling element coupling with a counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit or a counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit carrier.
Yamada discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the rotor (2, Fig. 1) comprises a coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1) for releasably securing the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier by coupling with a 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]) of the reaction vessel unit (test tube holder 3, 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 Exhibit 1004 and 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 37, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada discloses wherein the coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada) is provided at a bottom side of the rotor (corresponding to the rear side) opposite to a top side (corresponding to the front side) where the reaction vessel unit (test tube holder 3, Yamada) can be inserted into the rotor (2, Fig. 1, Yamada).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada discloses wherein the coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada) of the rotor is a magnetic coupling element (para. [0054], Yamada).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada discloses wherein the counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier is made of a magnetic material (the test tube holder 3 itself is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element, para. [0054], Yamada).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada discloses wherein the stopper comprises a coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada) configured to releasably couple with a 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) of the reaction vessel unit (test tube holder 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada discloses the centrifuge according to claim 37; and a reaction vessel unit carrier (see annotated Fig. 4 of Takibana below) releasably carrying a reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 4, Takibana) with a plurality of reaction vessels (wells 201b, Fig. 4, Takibana) arranged in a two-dimensional array with openings of the reaction vessels directed radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (Fig. 8 and 9, Takibana), the reaction vessel unit carrier having 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) aligned with a releasably coupling element of the rotor (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1, Yamada).
PNG
media_image7.png
396
600
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, and further in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Lattanzi (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0087426).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Yamada does not disclose wherein the counter-coupling element of the reaction vessel unit comprises a ferromagnetic plate orientated orthogonal to the axis of rotation.
Lattanzi discloses analogous art relating to a centrifuge wherein the counter-coupling element (magnet 34, Fig. 2A) of the reaction vessel unit (bucket 30; Fig. 1) comprises a ferromagnetic plate (the magnet 34 is plate shaped and made of ferromagnetic material) orientated orthogonal to the axis of rotation (b, 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 or the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada with the counter-coupling element taught by Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge for loading and unloading the rotor (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
Claim 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Lattanzi.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana does not disclose further comprising a beam arranged to be extended and retracted through a centrifuge section, within which the rotor is configured to rotate, to load and unload the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier into and out of the rotor.
Lattanzi discloses analogous art relating to a centrifuge, comprising a beam (actuator rod 15’; Fig. 2; Lattanzi) arranged to be extended and retracted through a centrifuge section, within which the rotor is configured to rotate, to load and unload the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier into and out of the rotor (see Fig. 1 for retracted state and Fig. 2 for extended state). 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 the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana with the loading mechanism of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge for loading and unloading the rotor (para. [0026]; Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana does not disclose wherein the stopper comprises two laterally spaced portions separated by a space, and wherein the beam is arranged to be extended and retracted through the space.
Lattanzi also teaches a stopper (pair of trunnions or pivots of the rotating head for each bucket 30 located at axis “a”, para. [0037], Fig. 2) comprising two laterally spaced portions separated by a space (space between the pair of trunnions or pivots of the rotating for each bucket 30), and wherein the beam (actuator rod 15’, Fig. 2) is arranged to be extended and retracted through the space (Fig. 2). 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 Exhibit 1004 and Takibana with the stopper of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge for loading and unloading the rotor (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the beam (actuator rod 15’, Fig. 2, Lattanzi) is arranged to be extended and retracted in a direction parallel to and vertically spaced from the horizontal rotation axis of the shaft (the beam incorporated into the centrifuge of Takibana, which rotates around a horizontal axis, would be vertically spaced from the rotation axis).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the beam (actuator rod 15’, Fig. 2, Lattanzi) comprises a coupling element (permanent magnet 17, Lattanzi), at a free end of the beam (Fig. 1, Lattanzi), configured to releasably couple with a counter-coupling element (magnet 34, Fig. 2A, Lattanzi) of the reaction vessel unit (bucket 30, Fig. 1, Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Lattanzi discloses wherein the coupling element of the beam is a magnetic coupling element (permanent magnet 17, Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Lattanzi discloses the centrifuge according to claim 46; and a reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1, Takibana) with a plurality of reaction vessels (wells 201b, Fig. 4, Takibana) arranged in two-dimensional array (Fig. 4, Takibana) having a counter-coupling element (magnet 34, Fig. 2A, Lattanzi) aligned with the releasable coupling element of the free end of the beam in a loading and unloading position (Fig. 1 and 2, Lattanzi).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, and further in view of Yamada, as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Piramoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0184578, hereinafter Piramoon ‘578).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Yamada does not disclose wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier comprises a rectangular frame having rims at the side edges, wherein the upper surfaces of the rims are tilted inwards and are non-continuous along at least one side of the reaction vessel unit carrier.
Piramoon ‘578 discloses analogous art relating to a centrifuge wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier (supporting carrier 14; Fig. 2E) comprises a rectangular frame having rims (outer side walls 70a, 70b, 70c, 70d; Fig. 2E) at the side edges, wherein two rims comprises an upper surface that is tilted inwards and are non-continuous along at least one side of the reaction vessel unit carrier (see annotated partial 2E below). It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the tilted upper surfaces so that each rim comprises an upper surface that is tilted inwards, and doing so would not produce any new or unexpected results. 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 Exhibit 1004 and Takibana, and Yamada with the reaction vessel unit carrier taught by Piramoon ‘578 for the purpose of receiving and supporting microplates in the carrier (para. [0025]; Piramoon).
PNG
media_image8.png
504
573
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exhibit 1004 in view of Takibana, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Yamada, and further in view of Leach.
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana discloses a system comprising: a centrifuge according to claim 21; a first reaction vessel unit (microplate 201, Fig. 1) or reaction vessel unit carrier releasably carrying a reaction vessel unit with a plurality of reaction vessels (well 201b, Fig. 4) arranged in two-dimensional array, wherein the first reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier is releasable secured in one of the two plate trays (holding part 104, Fig. 1), wherein the second reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier is releasably secured in the other of the two plate trays (Fig. 1 and 9), and a releasably coupling element of the rotor (“leaf spring”, para. [0029] of English translation filed with IDS on 8 March 2024), but does not disclose the first reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier having a counter-coupling element aligned with a first releasable coupling element of the rotor, and a second reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier configured as a counterweight, the second reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier having a counter-coupling element aligned with a second releasable coupling element of the rotor.
Yamada discloses the first reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier having a counter-coupling element (the test tube holder 3 itself is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element, para. [0054]) aligned with a first releasable coupling element (magnetic member 7a, 7b, Fig. 1) of the rotor, and the second reaction vessel unit or reaction vessel unit carrier having a counter-coupling element aligned with a second releasable coupling element of the rotor (Fig. 1, two reaction vessel units and two coupling elements are shown). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the first reaction vessel unit of the combination of Exhibit 1004 and Takibana with the counter-coupling element as taught by Yamada for the purpose of locking the holders in position on the rotor (Abstract, Yamada). 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.
The combination of Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Yamada does not disclose wherein the second reaction vessel unit is configured as a counterweight.
Leach discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge (Fig. 3), and a second reaction vessel unit configured as a counterweight (322, Fig. 20). 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 Exhibit 1004, Takibana, and Yamada with the fixed counterweight as taught by Leach for the purpose of balancing the reaction vessel unit within the centrifuge (para. [0074], Leach).
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