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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-10 in the reply filed on November 19th, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-10 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 1 and 2 disclose the limitation of “it” and “its” respectively in lines 22 & 2 respectively as well. Said limitations are vague and unclear, as it is unclear what the limitation of “it” & “its” is previously referring to. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 5 discloses “the fluid” in line 3. However, fluid from a first fluid source, and fluid from a second fluid source. However, multiple fluids are referenced in claim 1. Furthermore, gas is referenced from the first fluid source, and a review of the specification appears to show that the Applicant intends to claim that “the gas enters through the fifth connection port (18) and exits through the second connection port (14).” Therefore, it is unclear what the Applicant is claiming, and thus necessitating the rejection. It is suggested to amend to “wherein the gas enters” or just “wherein fluid enters”. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 3, 4 and 6-10 are rejected as well merely due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,752,444) in view of Angulo (International Publication No. WO 2019/123268).
It is first noted that the English translation of International Publication No. WO 2019/123268 (herein referenced as Angulo) will be relied upon as set forth herein. It is further noted that the original document as well as the English translation of Angulo was provided in the restriction requirement filed on May 20th, 2025.
Bowen discloses a pneumatic device for washing, drying, and disinfecting device canals (Figure 1), comprising:
A cylinder (formed by walls 2, 4 & 9) comprising:
A chamber (10) with a gas inlet (at 21-1) and an outlet (i.e., hole in which rod passes through wall 4; column 3, lines 20-33), said inlet (at 21-1) configured to connect with a first fluid source (22);
A piston rod (14) connected to the outlet (column 3, lines 20-33); and
A plunger (18) arranged on the piston rod (14), said plunger (18) being located inside the chamber (10);
A piston (16) connected to one end of the piston rod (14);
A container (formed by walls 2, 4 & 7) with an inlet (i.e., hole in which rod passes through wall 4 into container; column 3, lines 20-33) and an outlet (at 30-1), said inlet being aligned with the outlet of the chamber (column 3, lines 20-33) of the cylinder and wherein the piston (16) is located inside the container (formed by walls 2, 4 & 7); and,
A multi-way coupling (33) with four connection ports, a first connection port (13) configured to connect to the outlet (at 30-1) of the container (formed by walls 2, 4 & 7), a second connection port (at conduit 30) configured to connect to a second fluid source (42); a third connection port (at conduit 36) configured to connect to a canal of a device (34); and a fourth connection port (48) configured to connect to the first fluid source (numeral 22; column 3, lines 34-50; column 4, lines 34-44; Note the disclosure of the “aforementioned” source of gas 22 denoting that “gas supply” 22 shown in Figure 1 are one in the same);
Wherein the inlet (at 21-1) of the chamber (10) allows the entry of a gas coming from the first fluid source (22) into the chamber (10) generating a gas pressure difference inside the chamber (10) to generate an up and down movement of the plunger (18) as set forth in column 3, lines 34-62; and
Wherein, the multi-way coupling (33) in a first position allows the passage of fluid from the second fluid source (42) into the container (column 4, lines 7-10), in a second position it allows the passage of fluid from the container (formed by walls 2, 4 & 7) into the device canal (column 4, lines 63 to column 5, line 53), and in a third position it allows the passage of gas from the first fluid source (22) into the device canal (column 5, lines 54-61).
Bowen does not appear to disclose that the multi-way coupling is a multi-way valve, however, Angulo discloses a pneumatic device for washing, drying and disinfecting device canals, wherein the device includes a cylinder (6) with a piston rod (6.1) and a piston (6.2) connected to one end of said piston rod (6.1), a container (9) adjacent to the cylinder (6) and the piston (6.2) located therein; and a multi-way coupling (10) having four connection ports connected to an outlet of the container, a second fluid source, a canal of a device, and to a first fluid source (Figure 24; page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph). The reference continues to disclose that the multi-way coupling is a multi-way valve in order to more directly and accurately control the contents being delivered to the canals of the device while limiting the noise and simplifying the pneumatic device (page 6, lines 16-22; page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a multi-way valve as the multi-way coupling in Bowen in order to more directly and accurately control the contents being delivered to the canals of the device while limiting the noise and simplifying the pneumatic device as exemplified by Angulo.
Therefore, claim 1 is not patentable over Bowen in view of Angulo.
Concerning claims 3 & 4, Bowen continues to disclose that between the first fluid source (22) and the inlet (at 21-1) a solenoid valve (20) is arranged, and between the first fluid source (22) and the fourth connection port (48) a check valve (49) is arranged (Figure 1; column 4, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 6, Bowen further discloses a computing unit (26) connected to a solenoid valve (20) arranged between the first fluid source (22) and the inlet (at 21-1); wherein the computing unit (26) sends an actuation control signal to the solenoid valve (20), said solenoid valve (20) being opened or closed from the actuation control signal (column 3, lines 34-61).
With respect to claim 9, Bowen continues to disclose that between the first fluid source (22) and the fourth connection port (48), a solenoid valve (38) is arranged (Figure 1), which is connected to the computing unit (26), wherein the solenoid valve (38) the fluid passage according to an actuation signal sent by the computing unit (column 4, lines 30-43; column 5, lines 54-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the Applicant overcome the 112(b) rejections noted above, then claims 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 would be merely 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799