OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
the irregular grey background shading seen in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 7 is objected to as incorporating a form of shading that does not aid in understanding the invention and reduces legibility of the elements forming the invention - 37 CFR 1.84(m). It is unclear why the shading is present, or even needed.
The drawings are objected to as incorporating a form of shading that does not aid in understanding the invention and reduces legibility of the elements forming the invention - 37 CFR 1.84(m). Accordingly, proper line drawings that comply with 37 CFR 1.84 are required. See 37 CFR 1.84(l): All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views.
Applicant should review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification may require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review.
From MPEP 608.01(g): The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The Abstract of the Disclosure is objected to because:
a. the recitation of "is provided” in line 1 is an improper implied phrase. Line 1 should perhaps read: --An adaptor for a centrifuge rotor comprises: a body comprising a--
b. the extraneous text “(Figure 5)” should be deleted.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 5, 6, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
Claims 5-6: A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. For example, the Board has held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited “said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for” was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989. Claims 5-6 are thus of indeterminate scope since it is unclear what diameters are are included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes and bounds of these claims is so unclear as to obscure the specific subject matter the claims encompass. Since a PCR tube and a 0.5 milliliter to 2 milliliter sample container may indeed possess different diameters depending upon configuration, manufacturer, materials, etc. the claims reference a diameter that is a variable leading to claims of unknown scope.
Claim 12: does the “centrifuge rotor” and “plurality of rotor bores” have any relationship to these same elements recited in claim 1?
Claim 13: does the “centrifuge rotor” and “plurality of rotor bores” have any relationship to these same elements recited in claim 1?
Claim 14, line 4: “the plurality or rotor bores” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15: does the “centrifuge rotor” and “plurality of rotor bores” have any relationship to these same elements recited in claim 1? In line 6, “the bore” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
Initial remarks on the rejections to follow: Claims 1-11 are considered drawn to the subcombination of the adaptor only. Accordingly, any language relating to the centrifuge rotor or particular cooperation with the centrifuge rotor is not considered germane to the patentability of the adaptor subcombination. The use of the adaptor in a particular centrifuge rotor that is not part of the claimed subcombination is tantamount to an intended use of the adaptor. The claim language in lciam 1 "for a centrifuge rotor” and “for being recieved in a rotor bore of a centrifuge” are merely statements of intended use which imparts no structure to the claimed apparatus. It is well settled that the intended use of an apparatus is not germane to its patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 177 USPQ 705 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TOYAMA (US 6045494) that discloses the combination of a centrifuge (Figure 1) and adaptor including an adaptor body 20 with bores therein; protrusions (one or more of 21) having tapered ends extending from the body 20 - Figure 1; a centrifuge with a rotor 10, 40, 50, or 60 for receiving the adaptor body 20 and operating the centrifuge (col. 1, line 60 - col. 2, line 61; col. 4, lines 21-29); see Figure 4 for protrusions 21 adapted for being arranged on a segment of a circular arc 63 of centrifuge rotor 60; and the protrusions 21 being inserted into and received in discrete rotor bores 13 of centrifuge rotor 10 or in bores 43 of rotor 40 or in bores 53 of rotor 50; a rotor kit including the centrifuge rotor 10, 40, 50, or 60 having bores 13, 43, or 53 and the adaptor 20; a centrifuge kit including the centrifuge of Figure 1 and the centrifuge rotor 10, 40, 50, or 60 having bores 13, 43, or 53 and the adaptor 20; one of the protrusions 21 (a primary protrusion) inserted into a rotor bore 13, 43, or 54 of the plurality of rotor bores, sample containers (protrusions 21 other than the primary protrusion) inserted into the bores of the adaptor 20 to extend from the adaptor 20; and the centrifuge is operated (col. 1, line 60 - col. 2, line 61; col. 4, lines 21-29).
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WILLIAMS, JR. (US 3050239) that discloses the combination of a centrifuge 11 and adaptor including an adaptor body 31 with bores therein (col. 2, lines 4-6); protrusions (one or more of 32) having tapered ends extending from the body 20 - Figures 1, 5, 6; a centrifuge 11 with a rotor 18 having bores 26 or 27 for receiving the adaptor body 31 and operating the centrifuge (col. 1, lines 24-35 and col. 2, lines 20-44); a rotor kit including the centrifuge rotor 18 having bores 26 or 27 and the adaptor 31; a centrifuge kit including the centrifuge 11, the centrifuge rotor 18 having bores 26 or 27, and the adaptor 31; one of the protrusions 21 (a primary protrusion) inserted into a rotor bore 26 or 27 via the adaptor 31; and the centrifuge is operated (col. 1, lines 24-35 and col. 2, lines 20-44).
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LENTZ et al. (US 10076754 B2) that discloses the subcombination of an adaptor body 110 with bores 150, 170 therein (Figure 1A); protrusions 120, 130, 140, 2000 of different lengths and diameters extending from the body 110 - Figures 1A-3; the protrusions being tapered toward one end - Figures 1C-1E.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XUE et al. (US 2023/0136755 A1) that discloses the subcombination of an adaptor body 104, 204, or 304 with bores (¶ [0056]); and a large diameter cylindrical primary protrusion 102, 202, or 302 extending from the body 104, 204, or 304.
Allowable Subject Matter
None.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 11 JUNE 2026
Prosecution Insights