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 5-9, filed on 24 April 2026, with respect to claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-12 over Todteberg in view of Pogén has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 30 June 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15 are allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the air cut disc separates radially inwardly guided air between the air cut disc and a bottom portion of the chamber from the rotor. In particular, Pogén teaches that the fluid medium present at the lower region of the casing is liquid. Therefore the radial disc element 50 in Pogén does not operate to separate radially inwardly guided air between the disc element and the bottom of the casing from the rotating member. Instead, radial disc element 50 is in the liquid drainage path while the air flows upward and out of the side of the casing. Thus, incorporating Pogén’s radial disc element into Todteberg’s centrifuge would not result in a structure in which the disc separates radially inwardly guided air between the air cut disc and a bottom portion of the chamber from the rotor, since Todteberg also does not teach establishing a radially inward airflow in the bottom region of the rotor chamber.
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 8 and 16 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.
Claims 8 and 16 recites the limitation "the air disc" in line 6 and line 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the lower surface of the rotor and the upper surface of the air disc follow one another” renders the claim indefinite, because the phrase “follow one another” does not have an established technical definition that one skilled in the art could refer to determine what surface relationship is required to satisfy this limitation. The phrase is not defined in the specification because it does not appear anywhere in the specification as filed. It is unclear if the phrase means that the lower surface of the rotor and the upper surface of the air cut disc maintains a uniform axial separation distance. If this is the case, dependent claim 16 also adds that the two surfaces are parallel to each other, which would be redundant to what is recited by the “follow one another” limitation in claim 8. If the phrase “follow one another” means something different than “parallel”, then the scope of the limitation remains unclear and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights