NON-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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 November 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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 of in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01. The title should specify the at least one radiation source feature.
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a heat transfer section” in claim 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 34-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, it is unclear if the term “the radiation source” in line 6 refers to “at least one radiation source” previously recited in line 4. If they refer to the same element, consistent terminology should be used. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted. See MPEP 608.01(o). Claims 35-52 are rejected for the same reason due to their dependency upon said claim.
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 34-40, 43, 44, 50, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018234420 (Mann et al., hereinafter Mann) in view of WO 2021061406 (Allard et al., hereinafter Allard), and further in view of WO 2016150718 (Hayashi et al., hereinafter Hayashi).
Regarding claim 34, Mann discloses a centrifuge (1, Fig. 4) for rotating a sample carrier (reaction vessel unit 7, Fig. 4), which has at least one container for receiving a liquid sample, with a rotatable rotor (2, Fig. 4), which has at least one receiving section (receiving area 6, Fig. 4) for receiving the sample carrier, and a rotor space (rotor chamber 9, Fig. 4) in which the rotor is arranged, the rotor space delimited by a rotor housing (3, Fig. 4), but does not disclose wherein the centrifuge has at least one radiation source for emitting radiation into the rotor space with a wavelength of a maximum of 350 nm, and wherein the radiation source has an emitter which is connected in a heat-conducting manner to the rotor housing by means of a heat transfer section.
Allard discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the centrifuge has at least one radiation source (light 655 may be UV light, para. [00218], Fig. 99) for emitting radiation into the rotor space with a wavelength of a maximum of 350nm (e.g., “wavelength comprises 264 nanometers”, para. [00218]). 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 Mann with the radiation source as taught by Allard for the purpose of providing a chemical free, highly effective disinfectant against harmful microorganisms (para. [00218], Allard).
The combination of Mann and Allard does not disclose wherein the radiation source has an emitter which is connected in a heat-conducting manner to the rotor housing by means of a heat transfer section.
Hayashi discloses analogous art related to disinfection using UV light, wherein the radiation source (UV-C LED module 10, Fig. 9) has an emitter (UV-C LED die 12, Fig. 1) which is connected in a heat-conducting manner to the rotor housing (corresponds to “base supporting structure”, page 22 line 20) by means of a heat transfer section (printed circuit board 101, Fig. 12a, “Aluminium core PCBs are often used to help with the thermal management of the circuit”, page 27 lines 3-4). 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 Mann and Allard with the heat transfer section as taught by Hayashi, and use the rotor housing as the heat receiving structure, for the purpose of thermal management of the circuit (page 27 lines 3-4, Hayashi), since heat reduces the performance of the light source and subsequently reduces its lifetime (page 2 lines 3-11, Hayashi).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the rotor housing has an upper shell (11, Fig. 4, Mann) and a lower shell (10, Fig. 4, Mann), which are releasably connected to one another, and which delimit the rotor space (upper shell 11 and lower shell 4 connected by bolts, see Fig. 2, Mann).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the rotor housing has a front wall (12, Mann) and a rear wall (13, Fig. 4, Mann) for delimiting the rotor space.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the centrifuge has a rotor shaft (15, Fig. 4, Mann) which drives the rotor, and is rotatably mounted in the front and rear walls (“In the front end wall 12 and rear end wall 13 are each a ball bearing 14, in which a continuous shaft 15 of the rotor 2 is rotatably mounted”, page 7 lines 23-24 of machine translation, Mann).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the front wall has a passage (loading and unloading opening 19, Fig. 4, Mann) through which the sample carrier can be inserted into the rotor.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the centrifuge has a displacement device (loading and unloading device 8, Fig. 4, Mann) for introducing the sample carrier into the rotor and/or for removing the sample carrier from the rotor.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the at least one radiation source is arranged on or in the rotor housing (“The at least one light 655 may be disposed onto an internal circumference sidewall 618 of the protective cover 601, 704 and/or the external sidewall 627, 734 of the container cover or activation cover 103, 625, 702 para. [0022], Allard).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses a radiation emitted by at least one first radiation source has a different wavelength than radiation emitted by at least one second radiation source (“The first and/or second light may comprise different color lights, different wavelengths…”, para. [00220], Allard).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein at least two radiation sources (lights 655, Fig. 99, Allard) are arranged mirror-symmetrically to one another with respect to a mirror plane, which contains a central axis of a rotor shaft (armature 161, Fig. 99, Allard).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein the radiation source is a UV-C radiation source (UV-C LED module 10, Fig. 9, Hayashi).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi discloses wherein an inner housing surface of the rotor housing and/or a rotor surface and/or a rotor shaft surface is coated (“Th inner surfaces of the lower shell 10 and the upper shell 11 are coated with a smooth plastic layer”, page 8 lines 32-33, Mann).
Claims 41, 42, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann in view of Allard, and further in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of CN 111495615 (Zhou).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi does not disclose wherein the centrifuge has a cover which fluidically separates the radiation source from the rotor space and/or is configured such that it transmits radiation from the radiation source.
Zhou discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge that uses ultraviolet lamp, wherein the centrifuge has a cover (lampshade 510, Fig. 1) which fluidically separates the radiation source from the rotor space and/or is configured such that it transmits radiation from the radiation source (page 5 lines 27-35 of machine translation). 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 Mann, Allard, and Hayashi with the cover as taught by Zhou for the purpose of protecting the ultraviolet lamp tube from dust and other components (page 5 lines 27-35 of machine translation, Zhou).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi does not disclose wherein: a. the centrifuge has at least one electrical lead for electrically connecting the radiation source to an energy source, wherein the electrical lead runs at least partly through the front wall and/or the rear wall; and/or b. the radiation source is aligned such that the radiation hits the rotor and/or the inner housing surface.
Zhou discloses wherein the radiation source is aligned such that the radiation hits the rotor and/or the inner housing surface (“the ultraviolet lamp tube is irradiated towards the centrifuge chamber 110”, Abstract). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the radiation source of the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi as taught by Zhou for the purpose of sterilizing the centrifuge chamber (Abstract, Zhou).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi does not disclose wherein the centrifuge has a control device, which effects the following: a. during a washing operation, the radiation source does not emit any radiation; and/or b. the radiation source emits radiation when no sample carrier is arranged in the rotor; and/or c. the rotor is brought into a predetermined position in a decontamination operation, which differs from a position in which the sample carrier can be inserted into the rotor or ejected from the rotor; and/or d. the rotor is rotated during the decontamination operation.
Zhou discloses wherein the centrifuge has a control device, which effects the following: the rotor is rotated during the decontamination operation (page 4 lines 19-33 of machine translation). 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 Mann, Allard, and Hayashi with the control device taught by Zhou for the purpose so that the centrifugal chamber of each area and each angle can be fully sterilized (page 4 lines 19-33 of machine translation, Zhou).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann in view of Allard, and further in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0145968, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi does not disclose wherein: a. the receiving section has a base wall and two rails; and/or b. the rotor has a further receiving section for receiving a further sample carrier; and/or c. the centrifuge has at least one reflection body which is introduced into the receiving section of the rotor, wherein the reflection body has at least one surface for reflecting radiation; and/or d. the rotor has a reflecting surface which is aligned such that it reflects the radiation emitted by the radiation source into a predetermined housing area; and/or e. a part of the inner housing surface is aligned such that it reflects the radiation emitted by the radiation source into a predetermined rotor housing area and/or a predetermined rotor area.
Wang disclose analogous art related to a centrifuge for centrifuging a reaction vessel unit, wherein the receiving section (plate tray 11, Fig. 9) has a base wall (12, Fig. 2) and two rails (13, Fig. 3). 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 Mann, Allard, and Hayashi with the receiving section taught by Wang for the purpose of receiving microtiter plates (para. [0120], Wang).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann in view of Allard, and further in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of KR 970027465.
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi does not disclose wherein the centrifuge has at least one reflection body, wherein: a. the reflection body is connected to the rotor in a rotationally fixed manner; and/or b. the reflection body is attached to a rotor side which is arranged offset in a tangential direction in relation to the receiving section; and/or c. the reflection body has a reflection surface which extends axially and/or runs transversely to a central axis of a rotor shaft; and/or d. the centrifuge has at least two reflection bodies which are arranged on opposite rotor sides.
KR 970027465 discloses analogous art related to UV sterilization with a rotating chamber, wherein the centrifuge (corresponds to “rotating body”, Abstract) has at least one reflection body (reflecting plate 7, Fig. 1), wherein the reflection body is connected to the rotor (corresponds to laundry rod 1, Fig. 1) in a rotationally fixed manner (claim 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 modified the centrifuge of the Mann, Allard, and Hayashi combination to include a reflection body connected to the rotor in a rotationally fixed manner as taught by KR 970027465, because KR 970027465 demonstrates that mounting a reflective body so that it rotates together with a rotating component within a UV irradiated chamber is a known technique for directing UV radiation more effectively, and applying this known technique to the centrifuge rotor of the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of redirecting radiation within the rotor space, 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 C.
Claims 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann in view of Allard, and further in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of WO 2019165478 (Sucato et al., hereinafter Sucato).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Mann, Allard, and Hayashi does not disclose wherein the at least one radiation source is connected to the rotor in a rotationally fixed manner.
Sucato discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge, wherein the at least one radiation source is connected to the rotor in a rotationally fixed manner (“A source of electromagnetic radiation is positioned at a first position of the rotor”, Abstract; examples of operating wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are 214nm, 260nm, 280nm, and 295 nm, which are in the UV light range, para. [547]). 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 Mann, Allard, and Hayashi with at least radiation source connected to the rotor as taught by Sucato, as the simple substitution of the one known element (in this case, using the housing as the mounting location for the radiation source) for another (in this case, using the rotor as the mounting location for the radiation source) is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), Rationale B). Rotor mounting of the radiation source could provide more uniform irradiation of a rotating sample carrier.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Mann, Allard, Hayashi, and Sucato discloses the receiving section and/or a further receiving section (cavity 13, Fig. 5, Sucato) receives at least one radiation source (light source 7, Fig. 5, Sucato).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Mann, Allard, Hayashi, and Sucato discloses wherein in that multiple radiation sources are present, which are arranged at a distance from one another in a tangential direction (light sources 655, Fig. 99, Allard; para. [524], Fig. 2, Sucato).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights