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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 25 September 2025, with respect to claim 19, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-13, with respect to claim 19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “[t]here would have been no motivation to modify Hitachi in view of Pietilä as proposed in the Action because doing so would defeat Hitachi’s principle of operation and render it inoperable for its intended purpose of cleaning electronic components by orienting the openings of the tubes radially inward to receive washing fluid from the centrally located sprayer” (page 12, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Hitachi teaches cleaning components by rotational movement and fluid dispensing, and changing the orientation of vessel openings does not prevent rotation or render the apparatus inoperable, but rather add improved capability in emptying the vessels by centrifugation, as discussed in the rejections below. The proposed modification is predictable and within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such a simple substitution of one known vessel orientation for another, yielding predictable results, supports a conclusion of obviousness as held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Providing the capability of the rotor to hold the reaction vessels with the opening directed radially outward as taught by Pietilä does not preclude the ability of the centrifuge rotor to hold the reaction vessels with the opening directed radially inward. In modified Hitachi, a vessel emptying cycle can be performed after a fluid dispensing cycle, for example.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the outward facing orientation in Pietilä’s Fig. 15 would not be extracted from its full structural and operational context by one skilled in the art. A skilled person working within Hitachi’s framework would not merely substitute this orientation without adoption of Pietilä’s different rotor and plate design” (page 12, Remarks), the examiner points out that "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The 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 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."). See MPEP 2145. In this case, Pietilä is relied upon to teach the orientation of the openings, which Pietilä explicitly teaches. The difference between inward and outward facing vessel orientation is a variation in configuration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int heart in view of Pietilä, for centrifugally emptying vessels.
The rejection over Hitachi in view of Pietilä is therefore still deemed valid and is maintained.
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 19-26, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S47040437 (Hitachi, Ltd., hereinafter Hitachi; Foreign Patent Doc. #27 submitted with 15 September 2023 IDS) in view of EP 0937502 (Pietilä et al, hereinafter Pietilä).
Regarding claim 19, Hitachi discloses a centrifuge (Fig. 4) for cleaning a reaction vessel unit (component holder 3; Fig. 2) in which a plurality of reaction vessels (glass case 2; Fig. 3) are arranged in a two-dimensional array and each of the reaction vessels has at least one opening (see Fig. 3), the centrifuge comprising: an outer housing (cover 14; Fig. 4) comprising an opening (window 15, 16; Fig. 5) for loading and unloading the centrifuge with the reaction vessel unit; a rotor (rotary drum 8; Fig. 4) arranged within the outer housing and configured to rotate about a horizontal rotation axis, the rotor further being configured to hold the reaction vessel unit (component holder 3; Fig. 2) or a reaction vessel unit carrier releasably carrying the reaction vessel unit (see Fig. 4 and 5); a dispensing device (cleaning liquid spraying device 9; Fig. 4 and 5) comprising at least one dispensing nozzle (nozzle 12a; Fig. 5) arranged to dispense a fluid into reaction vessels of the reaction vessel unit; and a loading mechanism (transfer device 18; Fig. 5) configured to move the reaction vessel unit below the dispensing device in a moving direction so that, with the at least one dispensing nozzle, the plurality of reaction vessels of the reaction vessel unit arranged in line in the moving direction of the reaction vessel unit can be consecutively filled with the fluid (see Fig. 5); wherein the dispensing device is disposed adjacent to the opening of the outer housing and/or within the outer housing (cleaning liquid spraying device 9 is disposed within the cover 14; Fig. 4 and 5), but does not expressly disclose the at least one opening of each reaction vessel directed radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor
Pietilä discloses an analogous art relating to a centrifuge washing device (Abstract), comprising a rotor (drum 25; Fig. 15) further configured to hold the reaction vessel unit (sample plate 10d, 10e; Fig. 15) or a reaction vessel unit carrier releasably carrying the reaction vessel unit, with the at least one opening of each reaction vessel directed radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (see Fig. 15). 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 Hitachi with the rotor configuration taught by Pietilä for the purpose of emptying the sample wells or vessels by centrifugation (paras. [0040]-[0042], Pietilä).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing device (cleaning liquid spraying device 9; Fig. 4 and 5, Hitachi) is disposed adjacent to the opening (window 15, 16; Fig. 5, Hitachi) of the outer housing and within the outer housing (as shown in Fig. 5, Hitachi).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing device is connected to the outer housing (cover 14; Fig. 4, Hitachi) (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing device (cleaning liquid spraying device 9; Fig. 4 and 5, Hitachi) is provided adjacent to an upper section of the opening (window 15, 16; Fig. 5, Hitachi) of the outer housing (cover 14; Fig. 4, Hitachi) (as shown in Fig. 5, the cleaning liquid spraying device 9 is located adjacent and above the window 15, 16).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing device (cleaning liquid spraying device 9; Fig. 4 and 5, Hitachi) is arranged adjacent to a rotor housing (circular rotary drum 8 shown in Fig. 4, Hitachi) arranged within the outer housing (cover 14; Fig. 4, Hitachi).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing device (cleaning liquid spraying device 9; Fig. 4 and 5, Hitachi) comprises a plurality of dispensing nozzles (12a; Fig. 5, Hitachi).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing device is a dispensing bar (cleaning liquid spraying device 9 is in the shape of a bar; Fig. 5, Hitachi) comprising a plurality of dispensing nozzles arranged in line (nozzles 12a are arranged in lines; Fig. 5, Hitachi).
Regarding claim 26, modified Hitachi discloses that each column of the two-dimensional array of the plurality of reaction vessels (glass case 2; Fig. 3. Hitachi) can be filled with a dispensing solution (see arrow in Fig. 5 indicating moving direction of component holders 3, and lines of nozzles 12a fill each column of the two-dimensional array of the plurality of reaction vessels 2, Hitachi), but does not disclose each dispensing nozzle is provided for a column of reaction vessels of the reaction vessel unit in the moving direction of the reaction vessel unit.
Pietilä further discloses wherein each dispensing nozzle (dosing nozzle 12; Fig. 3) is provided for a column of reaction vessels of the reaction vessel unit (sample plate 10) in the moving direction of the reaction vessel unit (see arrow in Fig. 2 indicating moving direction of sample plate 10). 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 Hitachi with the dispensing nozzle of Pietilä for the purpose of dosing rinsing liquid into the sample well on the conveyor (para. [0029]-[0030], Pietilä).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 40, which are directed to a manner of operating a centrifuge (wherein the centrifuge is configured to repeat a plurality of washing steps comprising a cleaning or a washing step by centrifuging the reaction vessel unit and a dispensing step between the respective washing steps), it is noted that the manner of operating a disclosed device does not further limit an apparatus claim. As held in Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this case, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses all of the recited structure of said claim, irrespective of the manner in which said apparatus is operated. Nevertheless, Hitachi discloses said limitations at page 3 lines 27-32 and in Fig. 6 (the centrifuge is configured to perform a series of washing steps comprising dispensing and cleaning steps using 0.3 HCl, water, and alcohol).
Regarding claim 41, Hitachi discloses a system for cleaning a reaction vessel unit, comprising: the centrifuge according to claim 19; and a reaction vessel unit (component holder 3; Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of reaction vessels (glass case 2; Fig. 3) arranged in a two-dimensional array, wherein each reaction vessel comprises at least one opening (see Fig. 3), but does not disclose wherein the rotor of the centrifuge is configured to hold the reaction vessel unit with its openings facing radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor.
Pietilä discloses wherein the rotor (drum 25; Fig. 15) of the centrifuge is configured to hold the reaction vessel unit (sample plate 10d, 10e; Fig. 15) with its openings facing radially outwards with respect to the horizontal rotation axis of the rotor (see Fig. 15). 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 system of Hitachi with the rotor configuration taught by Pietilä for the purpose of emptying the sample wells or vessels by centrifugation (paras. [0040]-[0042], Pietilä).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses a reaction vessel unit carrier (holding portion attaching portion 7a, 7b; Fig. 4, Hitachi) configured to releasably carry the reaction vessel unit (component holder 3; Fig. 4, Hitachi); wherein the rotor (rotary drum 8; Fig. 4, Hitachi) of the centrifuge is configured to hold the reaction vessel unit carrier with the reaction vessel unit releasably carried in the reaction vessel unit carrier (see Fig. 4, Hitachi).
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Pietilä, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Tervamäki (U.S. Patent No. 4,953,575).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä does not explicitly teach a reservoir for a dispensing solution; a pump; wherein the dispensing device is connected to the reservoir; and wherein the pump is arranged to automatically pump the dispensing solution from the reservoir to the dispensing device.
Tervamäki discloses an analogous art relating to a washing device (Abstract), comprising a reservoir (vessel 2; Fig. 1) for a dispensing solution (washing liquid 3; Fig. 1); a pump (tubing pump 4; Fig. 1); wherein the dispensing device is connected to the reservoir; and wherein the pump is arranged to automatically pump the dispensing solution from the reservoir to the dispensing device (the tubing pump is rotated by means of a stepping motor 7.The washing liquid is pumped along the hoses into the dosage tips 8; col. 1 lines 47-55). 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 Hitachi and Pietilä with the dispensing solution reservoir and pump taught by Tervamäki for the purpose of washing cuvette sets or microdisks, (analogous to reaction vessel units) (col. 1 lines 4-8, Tervamäki).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä discloses wherein the dispensing solution in the reservoir is a washing fluid (Fig. 6, dispensing solutions are washing fluids e.g., 0.3% HCl, water, and alcohol; page 3 lines 26-30, Hitachi).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Pietilä, and further in view of Tervamäki, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Moschetti et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,116,626, hereinafter Moschetti et al.).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Hitachi, Pietilä, and Tervamäki does not disclose wherein the dispensing solution in the reservoir is heated.
Moschetti discloses an analogous art relating to a washing device (Abstract) wherein the dispensing solution in the reservoir is heated (the water inlet conduit 52 is connected to a suitable source of fresh hot and cold inlet water by means of the usual flexible hose 54; col. 3 lines 59-73). 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 Hitachi, Pietilä, and Tervamäki with the heated dispensing solution as taught by Moschetti for the purpose of providing hot and/or cold wash cycles for effective cleaning (col. 3 lines 59-73, Moschetti).
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Pietilä, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Lattanzi (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0087426).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä does not disclose wherein the loading mechanism comprises a beam configured to couple with the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier, the beam being movable to extend and retract the reaction vessel unit, and a motor 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 and a rotor housing arranged within the outer 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 Hitachi and Pietilä with the loading mechanism of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
PNG
media_image1.png
851
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 31 and 32, modified Hitachi does not disclose a magnetic coupling provided at a free end of the beam for coupling to the reaction vessel unit or to the reaction vessel unit carrier; wherein the magnetic coupling is configured to be coupled to a counter coupling element of the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier.
Lattanzi further discloses a magnetic coupling (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a) provided at a free end of the beam for coupling to the reaction vessel unit or to the reaction vessel unit carrier; wherein the magnetic coupling is configured to be coupled to a counter coupling element (operational magnet 34; Fig. 2a) of the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier. 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 Hitachi and Pietilä with the loading mechanism of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
Regarding claim 33, modified Hitachi does not disclose wherein the motor of the loading mechanism is arranged at a side of the rotor opposite the opening of the outer housing, and wherein the beam in its extended state extends through the rotor and the opening of the outer housing.
Lattanzi further discloses wherein the motor (electric motor; para. [0022]) of the loading mechanism (vertical actuator 15; Fig. 2) is arranged at a side of the rotor opposite the opening of the outer housing (motor is not shown in the figures, but it is apparent from Fig. 2 that the motor must be located at the bottom of actuator 15, opposite the opening of the outer housing and the rotor), and wherein the beam (actuator rod 15’; Fig. 2) in its extended state extends through the rotor and the opening of the outer housing (see extended state in 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 modified Hitachi with the loading mechanism of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
Regarding claims 34-36, modified Hitachi does not disclose 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; wherein the magnetic coupling provided at the free end of the beam is configured to be decoupled from the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier when the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier abuts the stopper; wherein the magnetic coupling provided at the free end of the beam is configured to be decoupled from the counter coupling element when the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier abuts the stopper.
Lattanzi further discloses a stopper (trunnions or pivots of the rotating head; para. [0037], located at axis a in Fig. 2) 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; wherein the magnetic coupling (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a) provided at the free end of the beam is configured to be decoupled from the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier when the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier abuts the stopper (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]); wherein the magnetic coupling (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a) provided at the free end of the beam is configured to be decoupled from the counter coupling element (operational magnet 34; Fig. 2a) when the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier abuts the stopper (when lugs 33 of the buckets 30 come in contact and rest upon the trunnions or pivots of the rotating head 11, the magnet of the buckets will disengage with the magnet of the actuator rod 15’; para. [0037] and [0033]-[0036]). 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 Hitachi with the loading mechanism of Lattanzi for the purpose of moving the bucket in and out of the centrifuge (para. [0026], Lattanzi).
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Pietilä, and further in view of Lattanzi, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0318755).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Hitachi, Pietilä, and Lattanzi does not disclose wherein the rotor comprises a magnetic coupling element capable of holding the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier by coupling to a counter coupling element of the reaction vessel unit or the reaction vessel unit carrier.
Yamada discloses an analogous art relating to a centrifuge wherein the rotor (2; Fig. 1) comprises a magnetic coupling element (locking mechanism 7; Fig. 1) capable of holding the reaction vessel unit (test tube holder 3; Fig. 1) or the reaction vessel unit carrier by coupling to a counter coupling element of the reaction vessel unit (the test tube holder 3 itself is formed of magnetic material and thus the entire holder acts as the counter coupling element; para. [0054]) or the reaction vessel unit carrier. 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 Hitachi, Pietilä, and Lattanzi with the magnetic coupling element taught by Yamada for the purpose of locking the test tube holder 3 on the rotor vertically or at a small angle for supernatant discharge step (para. [0054] and [0068], Yamada).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Hitachi, Pietilä, and Lattanzi does not disclose wherein the stopper comprises the magnetic coupling element.
Yamada discloses the stopper comprises the magnetic coupling element (locking mechanism 7; Fig. 1, locking mechanism acts like a stopper in that it stops and locks the test tube holder at an angle of about 8 degrees in the outer circumferential direction; 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 modified Hitachi with the magnetic coupling element taught by Yamada for the purpose of locking the test tube holder 3 on the rotor vertically or at a small angle for supernatant discharge step (para. [0054] and [0068], Yamada).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Hitachi, Pietilä, and Lattanzi discloses the magnetic counter coupling element (operational magnet 34; Fig. 2a, Lattanzi) coupled to the magnetic coupling (permanent magnet 17; Fig. 2a, Lattanzi) as discussed in the rejections above, but does not disclose wherein the magnetic counter coupling element is configured to be coupled to the stopper upon decoupling from the magnetic coupling.
Yamada teaches the stopper (locking mechanism 7; Fig. 1) capable of coupling with the magnetic 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]) upon decoupling from the magnetic coupling (by applying an electric current to the magnetic coil 7c, the magnetic members 7a and 7b of the locking mechanism 7 acts as a magnet to attract the test tube holder 3 formed of the magnetic member; para. [00054], and deemed capable of attracting an uncoupled magnetic counter coupling element). 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 Hitachi with the magnetic coupling element taught by Yamada for the purpose of locking the test tube holder 3 on the rotor vertically or at a small angle for supernatant discharge step (para. [0054] and [0068], Yamada).
Claims 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi in view of Pietilä, as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Piramoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0184578, hereafter Piramoon).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä does not disclose wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier comprises a rectangular frame with rims at side edges of the rectangular frame, wherein each rim comprises an upper surface that is tilted inwards.
Piramoon discloses an analogous art relating to a centrifuge wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier (supporting carrier 14; Fig. 2E) comprises a rectangular frame with rims (outer side walls 70a, 70b, 70c, 70d; Fig. 2E) at side edges of the rectangular frame, wherein two rims comprises an upper surface that is tilted inwards (see annotated partial Fig. 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, 274 F.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 Hitachi and Pietilä with the reaction vessel unit carrier taught by Piramoon for the purpose of receiving and supporting microplates in the carrier (para. [0025], Piramoon).
PNG
media_image2.png
504
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 44 and 45, the combination of Hitachi and Pietilä does not disclose wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier comprises a rectangular frame with rims at side edges of the rectangular frame, wherein at least one of the rims is non-continuous along one side edge of the rectangular frame; wherein at least two rims on opposite side edges of the rectangular frame are non-continuous.
Piramoon discloses wherein the reaction vessel unit carrier (supporting carrier 14; Fig. 2E) comprises a rectangular frame with rims (outer side walls 70a, 70b, 70c, 70d; Fig. 2E) at side edges of the rectangular frame, wherein at least one of the rims is non-continuous along one side edge of the rectangular frame (see annotated partial Fig. 2E above); wherein at least two rims on opposite side edges of the rectangular frame are non-continuous (see annotated partial Fig. 2E above). 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 Hitachi and Pietilä with the reaction vessel unit carrier taught by Piramoon for the purpose of receiving and supporting microplates in the carrier (para. [0025], Piramoon).
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