DETAILED 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrases “The invention relates” and “According to the invention” as well as the legal phraseology “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see page 2, line 8). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 1-21 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 claims 1, 13, and 21, each claim recites delivering “cooling energy”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how “cooling energy” can be delivered. Instead, the disclosed system utilizes an evaporator 2 to absorb heat from the centrifuge 3 (see Fig. 3 of the instant application). For examination purposes the delivery of cooling energy is presumed to refer to said disclosed configuration for cooling.
Each claim also recites performing an open or closed loop control “by means of one or two among the expansion unit and the compressor”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. For examination purposes the limitation is presumed to mean that at least one of the expansion unit and the compressor is controlled to perform the open or closed loop control.
Each claim also recites determining whether the absolute value of the difference between target temperature and detected temperature is less than the threshold value or a second threshold value. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. For examination purposes the claim is presumed to simply refer to the threshold value.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-20, the claims are rejected due to dependence from rejected claims as discussed above.
Further regarding claim 11, line 6 of the claim recites “a threshold”. It is unclear whether or not this is in addition to the threshold recited in claim 1 (from which claim 11 depends). For examination purposes claim 11 is presumed to refer to the same threshold as that recited in claim 1.
Further regarding claims 15-16, each claim recites a flow of “cooling energy”. Similar to the rejections discussed above, it is unclear how such a flow can be provided. For examination purposes the claims are presumed to refer to a flow of refrigerant through the evaporator.
Examiner Note
Claims 1-21 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features. For example, Mueller (US 2015/0080202) discloses a centrifuge (Fig. 3) comprising:
a centrifuge vessel 37;
a refrigerant circuit with a circulating refrigerant; and
a temperature sensor 51 that senses a temperature in the centrifuge vessel 37;
wherein
the refrigerant circuit comprises
a controllable compressor 31;
a condenser 33;
an adjustable expansion unit 39; and
an evaporator 35 for cooling the vessel 37;
a connection line of the compressor 31 to the condenser 33 is connected via a bypass line 43 to a connection line between the expansion unit 39 and the evaporator 35; and
an electronically controlled valve 45 is arranged in the bypass line 43; and
an electronic control unit 60 comprising control logic is used to control the system based on a difference between the target temperature and the sensed temperature (Fig. 4; paragraphs 24 and 54).
However, there is nothing in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference(s) to incorporate the specific claimed control in the normal and exceptional operation modes in the manner as required by the claims.
These claims cannot be considered to be "allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights