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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 form(s) submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 18 MAR 2024.
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 "There is provided” in line 1 is an improper implied phrase. The language of the abstract should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," and the like - per MPEP 608.01(I)(C).
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 1-10 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 1-3: the distinction between the elements center-of-gravity adjustment unit, weight drive mechanism, and weight drive unit is unclear/confusing since these elements appear to be referring to the same structure. For example, the center-of-gravity adjustment unit drives the adjustment weight to move in the radial direction, the weight drive mechanism drives the adjustment weight in the radial direction and the weight drive unit drives the adjustment weight, thus there appears to be no particular difference between these elements since they all perform the same function within the context of the claims. Moreover, no structural peculiarities are individually associated with these elements to establish a clear distinction between these elements. The claims are being treated on the merits to the extent they are understood.
Claim 1, line 5: “the other end side” lacks antecedent basis rendering lines 4-5 confusing.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GREENSTEIN (US 5207634).
The patent to GREENSTEIN discloses a centrifuge 10 comprising: a rotor 12 rotationally driven around a predetermined axis, supporting a bucket 14 at one end in a radial direction of a rotation around the axis, the bucket 14 holding a container 16 storing a specimen, and supporting a solid adjustment weight 22 to be movable in the radial direction on the other end side in the radial direction (Figures 2, 5, 6), the adjustment weight 22 adjusting a rotational balance by adjusting a center of gravity of the rotor 12; a rotor drive motor 32 to rotationally drive the rotor; a center-of-gravity adjustment unit 50 provided at a position away from the rotor on the frame 17 to be selectively coupleable to the rotor, and coupled to drive the adjustment weight 22 to move in the radial direction when the center of gravity is adjusted; and a control unit 30 to control operations of the center-of-gravity adjustment unit and the rotor drive motor;
wherein the center-of-gravity adjustment unit includes a weight drive mechanism 50 to drive the adjustment weight in the radial direction, and a coupling mechanism 128 to move the weight drive mechanism to couple or separate the rotor and the weight drive mechanism from each other such that the adjustment weight can be driven, and the control unit 30 calculates drive data for moving the adjustment weight based 22 on input data regarding a weight of the specimen to be centrifuged, and controls the weight drive mechanism based on the drive data;
wherein the weight drive mechanism includes a weight drive unit 50 to drive the adjustment weight 22, and a coupling end portion at 128 on a drive side to couple the weight drive unit and the rotor to each other, and the rotor 12 includes a coupling end portion at 126 on a rotor side connected to the coupling end portion 128 on the drive side;
wherein the control unit 30 calculates drive data for moving the adjustment weight to a position where a center-of-gravity position of the rotor when the specimen is set in the rotor coincides with a rotation center of the rotor, and controls a driving of the coupling unit and the weight drive mechanism to couple the weight drive mechanism to the rotor and then to move the adjustment weight to the center-of-gravity position based on the drive data per col. 5, line 37 - col. 7, line 61;
wherein the input data to the control unit 30 is transmitted and input from an external weight measurement unit or an external computer via a wired or wireless communication - Fig. 9 and col. 5, lines 37-48;
wherein as the input data to the control unit 30, a weight of a container 16 of the specimen when the container 16 is held in the bucket 14 is automatically measured and input to the control unit 30 - col. 6, line 39 - col. 7, line 19;
and a method for adjusting a center of gravity of a rotor of a centrifuge including a rotor rotationally driven around a predetermined axis, supporting a bucket at one end in a radial direction of a rotation around the axis, the bucket holding a container storing a specimen, and supporting a solid adjustment weight to be movable in the radial direction on the other end side in the radial direction, the adjustment weight adjusting a rotational balance, a center-of-gravity adjustment unit disposed at a position away from the rotor to be connectable to the rotor, and to move the adjustment weight in any direction of the radial direction, and a control unit to control an operation of the center-of-gravity adjustment unit, the method comprising: (a) a data input step of inputting data regarding a weight of the container storing the specimen; (b) a calculation step of calculating a movement amount of the adjustment weight based on the data; (c) a step of connecting the center-of-gravity adjustment unit to the rotor before both or one of the step (a) and the step (b) is executed, after the execution, or during the execution; and (d) an adjustment step of adjusting a center-of-gravity position of the rotor by moving the adjustment weight based on the movement amount calculated in the step (b) after all the steps (a) to (c) are executed - per col. 5, line 37 - col. 7, line 61;
wherein in the step (a), the data regarding the weight is input from an external weight measurement unit or an external computer via a wired or wireless communication - Fig. 9 and col. 5, lines 37-48.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREENSTEIN in view of CHAMMAS (US 2008/0248938 A1).
Assuming, arguendo, that GREENSTEIN does not discloses the recited manners related to the transmission of data, CHAMMAS discloses a centrifuge that utilizes both a wired and/or wireless transmission of data from the centrifuge per [0023], [0045], and [0046]:
[0023] The centrifuge rotor comprises a cylindrical shaped drum at its center mounted above a rotating spindle with all entities, rotor, drum, and spindle having the same axis of rotation. As used herein the word "Computer" means but is not restricted to all types of computers and microcomputers built with any type of discrete or integrated microprocessor, or any type of discrete or integrated microcontroller. Such microprocessors or microcontrollers may or may not include other components such as memory (RAM, ROM, PROM), memory management, caches, floating-point unit, input/output ports and timers. The definition of word "Computer" also includes any assembly or grouping of discrete or integrated transistors utilized in any computing or decision-making process. An upper portion of the drum preferably contains all necessary electronic circuit boards, chipsets, computers and the like that are used/programmed to operate and control the timing/sequence, duration, load, speed, intensity and the like of one or more or all of any valves, sensors, load cells, photocells, switches, motors, pumps, solenoids, and wireless communication devices that are included with and that spin with the rotor of the centrifuge system. The spinning electronic circuit boards or computer typically contain a computer that controls, communicates with, instructs, and receives feedback from all electrical, electronics and pneumatic devices and systems located on the spinning rotor. The electronic circuit boards preferably control the rotor and its speed. The spinning electronic circuit boards/computer is most preferably interconnected with remotely located electronic/electric devices and computers that are remotely disposed and do not spin with the rotor of the centrifuge. The spinning computer includes memory to store and exchange data, instructions, commands and information generally. The spinning computer preferably includes executable programs and a processor to carry out these programs. The system most preferably includes a mechanism that enables the spinning computer to directly communicate with the remote, non-spinning stand-alone devices and computers. Such mechanisms preferably comprise a data cable interconnected between the spinning computer and the remote devices via a family of slip rings or wireless communication channels to transfer data back and forth between the rotating computer and the remote stationary or stand-alone devices.
[0045] The computer can be hard wire interconnected by data transmission wires to a second computer disposed in a location remote from the rotor, the rotor including one or more slip rings for enabling the hard wire interconnection. Alternatively the computer can include a wireless data transfer mechanism, the computer sending data signals via the wireless data transfer mechanism to a second computer disposed in a location remote from the rotor. The second computer comprises one or more of portable computer, a stationary computer, a network of computers, a remote control device, a microprocessor, video display monitor or a digital memory device.
[0046] The rotor embedded computer preferably includes: one or more programs that include instructions for executing blood processing operations, a mechanism for sending and receiving one or more data or instruction signals to and from other digital data processing or storage devices comprising one or more sensors, monitors, gauges, drivers, motors, valves or actuators, wherein the other devices are mounted within the rotor, and, a wireless communication mechanism that effects communication of signals between the computer and one or more electronic devices disposed in a location remote from the rotor.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the centrifuge of GREENSTEIN with wired and/or wireless communication capability as taught by CHAMMAS to establish reliable communication of data between on-board centrifuge sensors that send data signals via the wireless data transfer mechanism to a second computer disposed in a location remote from the centrifuge rotor, per the paragraphs above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses rotor balancing devices.
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: 22 JULY 2026
Prosecution Insights