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
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 form submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 15 FEB 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
The drawings contain improper sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight (37 CFR 1.84(h)(3)). For example, Figure 9 indicates a sectional view derived from “A-A” and Figure 12 indicates a sectional view derived from “B-B”, yet it is unknown which associated Figures generate the sectional views seen in Figures 9 and 12 since the Figures lack any sectional lines “A-A” or “B-B” (although improper). Accordingly, proper sectional lines -- 9-9 -- and -- 12-12 -- should be added to the appropriate Figures that actually generate the views of Figures 9 and 12. All sectional views should be corrected in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
The lead lines forming the Figures are of inadequate quality (not uniformly thick and well-defined - 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. Note the lead lines throughout the Figures are faded, broken, and blurry making it difficult to discern which structural element is actually being labeled.
Figure 7 has a lead line with no associated reference character (near the 6 o’clock position).
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 will require revision, especially with regard to the sectional line designations, 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.
Applicant should thus verify that (1) all reference characters in the drawings are described in the detailed description portion of the specification and (2) all reference characters mentioned in the specification are included in the appropriate drawing Figure(s) as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10, ¶ [0060], last line of this paragraph: replace “Fig. 2 to Fig. 4” with --Fig. 12-- since the stop ring 30 is seen in Figure 12.
The substitute abstract 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 (MPEP 606.01).
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 20-38 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).
Claim 20, last line: “the side of the actuating element” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 24, line 2: “the maximum possible manufacturing tolerance” lacks antecedent basis and is a reference to a variable:
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). Claim 24 is of indeterminate scope since it is unclear what height offsets (H) are included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes and bounds of this claim are so unclear as to obscure the specific subject matter the claim encompasses. Furthermore, since the height offset is a function of a variable (the maximum possible manufacturing tolerance) this claim is further indefinite as relating the claimed height offset an undetermined/unspecified variable (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Since claim 24 relies upon subjective judgment or opinion to determine what height offset is within or outside the scope of “the maximum possible manufacturing tolerance” to meet the requirements of the claims, new claim 24 is of indeterminate scope.
Claim 26: do the “lateral U-shaped recesses” have any relationship to the “receptacle” recited in claim 25 - these claims appear to be referring to the same element with different nomenclature.
Claim 27, line 1: “the U-shaped recess” should be --the one or more lateral U-shaped recesses-- to agree with claim 26; in line 2, “the transversely extending region” lacks antecedent basis; does “a first angle (α)” have any relationship to the same angle recited in claim 20?
Claims 33 and 34: it appears “blocking elements (32)” should be --locking elements (32)--; the term “blocking” does not appear in the instant specification as indicated below and “(32)” designates the locking elements in the drawing Figures:
PNG
media_image1.png
48
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also see instant ¶ [0061].
Claim 35, line 2: “is designed throughout” is confusing wording; in line 2, “in its basic shape” is confusing and of unknown scope; it appears a revision to claim 35 such as --wherein the locking element (32) is a cylindrical elongated pin” would suffice and be free of indefiniteness and confusion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As noted in the corresponding PCT prosecution, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the since the subject matter of the claimed invention including that the angles (α, ß) are measured clockwise from the axis of rotation (24) starting from a side of the actuating element (26) and are between 0° and 90°. The subject matter develops a centrifuge in such a way that a backlash-free interlock is permitted between the rotor and the adapter by virtue of the blocking elements and compensation of manufacturing tolerances is ensured, while avoiding the disadvantages of the prior art such as requiring a high level of manufacturing precision or jamming. The subject matter is also outside the realm of obviousness whereby arranging the locking element at a first angle of between 0° and 90° to the axis of rotation of the drive shaft and by designing the locking bearing of the rotor at a second different angle of between 0° and 90° to the axis of rotation results in the manufacturing tolerances of the rotor, adapter, and drive shaft can be compensated while still ensuring a backlash-free interlock of the rotor in relation to the adapter and the drive shaft. Forming these two different angles between 0° and 90° facilitates the release of the quick-release fastener from the locking position to the unlocking position to permit securing the rotor to the drive shaft without play and also allowing quick release of the rotor without troublesome jamming effects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses fastening arrangements for securing a centrifuge rotor to the drive shaft.
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: 23 JUNE 2026
Prosecution Insights