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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 06/17/2022
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference no. 200 is not in the drawings. Please see specification [0015]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nahman et al. (US 2012/0051969 A1).
Nahman et al. discloses a stethoscope sanitizer (Fig.11 and [0031]) comprising: a base (Fig.10:1002, 1003, 1012, 1007 and 1005 or as shown assembled in Fig.11) having an opening flap (Fig.10:1001 or as shown assembled in Fig.11) actuated by a hinge (Fig.11:1101) and comprising a substantially hollow interior (Fig.10:1004, 1011, and 1010 are within the housing);
a sanitizing pad (Fig.10:1004) in the interior; and
a release mechanism (Fig.11:1103) on one end of the base (Gear 1103 in Fig.11 is on the end of back panel 1005 as show in Fig.10) in contact with the sanitizing pad ([0145-0146]; gears including 1103 advance roll 1105).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahman et al. (US 2012/0051969 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Spector (US 4,568,521)
Regarding claim 7, Nahman et al. discloses a method [0075-0081] for routine sanitization [0132] of stethoscopes, the method comprising the steps of:
Affixing a clip to a back [0123] of a substantially hollow box (Fig.10:1002, 1003, 1012, 1007 and 1005 or as shown assembled in Fig.11) having a release mechanism (Fig.11:1103) on one end of the box (Gear 1103 in Fig.11 is on the end of back panel 1005 as show in Fig.10);
placing a first sanitizing pad [0145] in contact with the release mechanism ([0145-0146]; gears including 1103 advance roll 1105);
opening a flap ([0145] and Figures 9A-9C) on the box using a hinge to expose the first sanitizing pad;
rubbing [0080-0081] a surface of a stethoscope on the first sanitizing pad;
closing the flap ([0145, 0107] and Figures 9A-9C) on the box;
based upon a determination that the first sanitizing pad needs to be replaced [0152 and 0132], actuating (is the step of opening the hinged flap to replace the role of disinfectant-impregnated material 1004 in Fig.10 or replacing the disinfectant-containing pad as shown in Fig.14A by opening special lid 1405 and [0142 and 0152]) the release mechanism (Fig.11:1103) to release (the used pad or sponge is removed by hand) the first sanitizing pad;
replacing the sanitization pad with a second sanitizing pad [0152];
and re-inserting the release mechanism (placing the roll of disinfectant-impregnated material 1004 that includes hinged wheel 1011, sprocket 101, and supply spindle 1009 as shown in Fig.10) with the second sanitizing pad in the box (Fig.10:1002, 1003, 1012, 1007 and 1005 or as shown assembled in Fig.11).
Nahman et al. teaches that the stethoscope device can either portable or stationary [0153]. However, Nahman et al. appears silent to disclose the step of affixing an adhesive to a back of the hollow box.
Specter discloses an aroma generator (Fig.1) where a layer of pressure-sensitive material (Fig.1:28) is attached to the rear face of mounting disc (Fig.1:26) in order to be able to mount the generator at any desired site on a wall (col.4, lines 10-14). The claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to add Specter adhesive pressure-sensitive material to the back panel of Nahman et al. stethoscope disinfection device in order to be able to mount the stethoscope disinfection device at any desired site on a wall.
Regarding claim 2, Nahman et al. teaches that the stethoscope device can either portable or stationary [0153]. However, Nahman et al. appears silent to disclose the step of affixing an adhesive to a back of the hollow box.
Specter discloses an aroma generator (Fig.1) where a layer of pressure-sensitive material (Fig.1:28) is attached to the rear face of mounting disc (Fig.1:26) in order to be able to mount the generator at any desired site on a wall (col.4, lines 10-14). The claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to add Specter adhesive pressure-sensitive material to the back panel of Nahman et al. stethoscope disinfection device in order to be able to mount the stethoscope disinfection device at any desired site on a wall of a medical environment.
Regarding claim 6, Nahman et al. teaches that the release mechanism comprises a hinge (Figures 9A-9C).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahman et al. (US 2012/0051969 A1) in view of Spector (US 4,568,521) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Williams (US 5,041,264).
Regarding claims 8-9, the combined Nahman et al. method does teach the use of sanitizing compounds [0038]. However, the combined Nahman et la. Method appears silent to disclose the use of isopropyl alcohol and ethanol alcohol.
Williams discloses an apparatus for disinfecting objects (col.1, lines 28-31) where the disinfectant solution isopropyl alcohol and ethanol alcohol (col.3, lines 40-45) since the solution is lethal to organisms, spores, bacteria, viruses and fungi (col3, lines 46-48). The claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to add isopropyl alcohol and ethanol alcohol to the sanitizing compounds of the combined Nahman et al. method in order to kill organisms, spores, bacteria, viruses and fungi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art found (Nahman et al., Specter and Williams) do not teach or fairly suggest that the release mechanism comprises clips attachable to the interior of the base as recited in claim 3. However, claims 4-5 are object to merely due to their depends from claim 3. The subject matter of claims 4-5 is not allowable since the pads in the Nahman et al. stethoscope disinfection device are capable of holding all different types of sanitizing compounds, including isopropyl alcohol and ethanol alcohol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798