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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sterilant applying module” in claim 1; “module” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the venting valve" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 1, it is not clear whether it is the control module rather than the control logic that is configured to “(i) selectively activating…(iii) selectively activating …to a second pressure”, since it is not clear how a “control logic [that is] configured to (i) selectively activating…, and (iii) selectively activating the valve to increase pressure within the sterilization chamber to a second pressure” (which appears to be a programming/software) can also be “configured to execute a sterilizing algorithm”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the medical device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the venting valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vacuum" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetz (WO2015094879).
As to Claim 1, Goetz (‘879) discloses an apparatus (100) (see Figure 1), comprising:
(a) a sterilization chamber (102), wherein the sterilization chamber (102) is configured to receive a medical device (105) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1);
(b) a vacuum source (106, 110, 112, 116, 125) in fluid communication (via 118, 114, 123) with the sterilization chamber (102) (see Figure 1);
(c) a sterilant applying module (130 - 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140; 142, 144, 139, 140) in fluid communication (via 139, 140) with the sterilization chamber (102) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 10 lines 10-16);
(d) a valve (145; 152) in fluid communication (via 143, 147) with the sterilization chamber (102) and an atmosphere outside (via 143, 147 and a filter) of the sterilization chamber (102) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 10 lines 22-26), the valve (145; 152) being operable to selectively open and close a vent path (via 143, 147; ) between the sterilization chamber (102) and the atmosphere (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 10 lines 22-26, p. 10 lines 20-28); and
(e) a control module (104, 155) in communication with the vacuum source (106, 110), the sterilant applying module (130, 131, 132, 135, 137, 139, 140; 142, 144, 139, 140), and the valve (145; 152) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 8 – lines 1-4), wherein the control module (104, 155) contains a control logic (155) configured to execute a sterilizing algorithm (see Figure 2) such that the control logic (155) is configured to:
(i) selectively activating the vacuum source (106) to apply a vacuum to the sterilization chamber (102) to decrease pressure within the sterilization chamber (102) to a first pressure (i.e. step(s) 16 and/or 26 - see Figure 2),
(ii) selectively activating the sterilant applying module (130, 131, 132, 135, 137, 139, 140; 142, 144, 139, 140) to apply sterilant to the sterilization chamber (102) (i.e. step 22 - see Figure 2), and
(iii) selectively activating the valve (145; 152) to increase pressure within the sterilization chamber (102) to a second pressure (i.e. step(s) 28, 30 - see Figure 2).
As to Claim 2, Goetz (‘879) discloses a system (see Figure 1) comprising:
the apparatus of claim 1 (see entire document, particularly Figure 1; see rejection above); and
a medical device (105) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 1 lines 12-22, p. 5 lines 13-16).
As to Claim 5, Goetz (‘879) discloses that the first pressure (i.e. pressure after step 16) is less than the second pressure (i.e. pressure after step(s) 28 and/or 30).
As to Claim 6, Goetz (‘879) discloses that the second pressure is atmospheric pressure (i.e. pressure after step(s) 28 and/or 30 - see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2, p. 12 lines 20-33).
As to Claim 7, Goetz (‘879) discloses that the first pressure is capable of being less than 100 torr.
As to Claim 8, Goetz (‘879) discloses that the second pressure (i.e. pressure during/after step 26) (see entire document, particularly Figure 2, p. 12 lines 14-17) is capable of being less than 100 torr.
As to Claim 17, Goetz (‘879) discloses an apparatus (100) (see Figure 1), comprising:
(a) a sterilization chamber (102);
(b) a vacuum source (106, 110, 112, 116, 125) in fluid communication (via 118, 114, 123) with the sterilization chamber (102) (see Figure 1), the vacuum source (106, 110, 116) configured to selectively apply a vacuum to the sterilization chamber (102) to decrease pressure within the sterilization chamber (102) to a first pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2);
(c) a module (130 - 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140; 142, 144, 139, 140) having a sterilant, the module being in fluid communication (via 139, 140) with the sterilization chamber (102) to permit application of the sterilant to the sterilization chamber (102) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 10 lines 10-16); and
(d) a valve (145; 152) in fluid communication (via 143, 147) with the sterilization chamber (102) and an atmosphere outside (via 143, 147 and a filter) of the sterilization chamber (102) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 10 lines 22-26), the valve (145; 152) being operable to selectively open and close a vent path (via 143, 147) between the sterilization chamber (102) and the atmosphere to increase pressure within the sterilization chamber (102) to a second pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2, p. 10 lines 22-26, p. 12 lines 20-28).
As to Claim 18, Goetz (‘879) discloses a system (see Figure 1) comprising:
the apparatus of claim 17 (see entire document, particularly Figure 1; see rejection above); and
a medical device (105) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 1 lines 12-22, p. 5 lines 13-16).
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Truong (20170304477).
As to Claim 1, Truong (‘477) discloses an apparatus (10) (see Figure 1), comprising:
(a) a sterilization chamber (12), wherein the sterilization chamber (12) is configured to receive a medical device (14);
(b) a vacuum source (18) in fluid communication (via 20, 22) with the sterilization chamber (12);
(c) a sterilant applying module (28) in fluid communication (via 30, 32) with the sterilization chamber (12);
(d) a valve (e.x. 22) in fluid communication with the sterilization chamber (12) and an atmosphere outside of the sterilization chamber (12) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-28), the valve (e.x. 22) being operable to selectively open and close a vent path (e.x. 20) between the sterilization chamber (12) and the atmosphere (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-28); and
(e) a control module (38) in communication with the vacuum source (18), the sterilant applying module (28), and the valve (e.x. 22), wherein the control module (38) contains a control logic (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0028] especially lines 10-11) configured to execute a sterilizing algorithm such that the control logic is configured to:
(i) selectively activating the vacuum source to apply a vacuum to the sterilization chamber to decrease pressure within the sterilization chamber to a first pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, p. 9 [0053] and [0059] , p. 11 – Claim 1 step (f)),
(ii) selectively activating the sterilant applying module to apply sterilant to the sterilization chamber (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, p. 9 [0058], p. 10 [0062], p. 11 – Claim 1 steps (h)-(i)), and
(iii) selectively activating the valve to increase pressure within the sterilization chamber to a second pressure (i.e. ambient/atmospheric pressure) (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, p. 10 [0061] – lines 8-10, p. 11 – Claim 1 step (k)).
As to Claim 2, Truong (‘477) discloses a system (10) (see Figure 1) comprising:
the apparatus of claim 1 (see entire document, particularly Figure 1; see rejection of claim 1 above); and
a medical device (14) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 8 [0051], p. 11 – claim 1(a), p. 12 – claim 26).
As to Claim 3, Truong (‘477) discloses that the medical device (14) is an endoscope (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 8 [0051] – lines 4-8, where endoscopes intrinsically comprise lumens and thus, instruments with lumen(s) intrinsically includes endoscope).
As to Claim 4, Truong (‘477) discloses that the medical device (14) is a plurality of endoscopes (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 4 [0027] – lines 3-4, p. 8 [0051] – lines 4-11, where endoscopes intrinsically comprise lumens and thus, instruments with lumen(s) intrinsically includes endoscope).
As to Claim 5, Truong (‘477) discloses that the first pressure is less than second pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, p. 4 [0027] – lines 21-25).
As to Claim 6, Truong (‘477) discloses that the second pressure is atmospheric pressure (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-25).
As to Claim 7, Truong (‘477) discloses that the first pressure is capable of being less than 100 torr (see entire document, particularly p. 12 – claims 22-23).
As to Claim 8, Truong (‘477) discloses that the second pressure is capable of being less than 100 torr (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, pressure after step “Pressurize the chamber” that leads to the step of “Withdraw air from the chamber”, p. 12 – claims 22-23).
As to Claim 9, Truong (‘477) discloses that the control logic (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0028] especially lines 10-11) is further configured to selectively activate the vacuum source (18) to apply the vacuum to the sterilization chamber (12) to reduce pressure within the sterilization chamber (12) to a third pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6 pressure after step of “pressurize the chamber” leading back to “Withdraw air from the chamber”; p. 4 [0027] – lines 21-23, p. 12 – claims 22-23).
As to Claim 10, Truong (‘477) discloses that the control logic (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0028] especially lines 10-11) is further configured to selectively activate the valve (e.x. 22) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-28) to increase pressure within the sterilization chamber (12) to a fourth pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6 after step(s) “Pressurize the chamber” or “Evacuate and pressurize the chamber” and/or “Open the chamber”; for example, atmospheric pressure; p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-25).
As to Claim 11, Truong (‘477) discloses that the third pressure is less than the fourth pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, p. 4 [0027] – lines 21-25; see rejections of claims 9-10 above).
As to Claim 12, Truong (‘477) discloses that the fourth pressure is atmospheric pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6 after step(s) “Pressurize the chamber” or “Evacuate and pressurize the chamber” and/or “Open the chamber”; for example, atmospheric pressure so as to enable opening of the chamber, p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-25).
As to Claim 13, Truong (‘477) discloses that the third pressure is capable of being less than 100 torr (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6 pressure after step of “pressurize the chamber” leading back to “Withdraw air from the chamber”; p. 4 [0027] – lines 21-23, p. 12 – claims 22-23).
As to Claim 14, Truong (‘477) discloses that the fourth pressure is capable of being less than 100 torr (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, pressure after step “Pressurize the chamber” that leads to the step of “Withdraw air from the chamber”).
As to Claim 15, Truong (‘477) discloses that the fourth pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, pressure after step “Pressurize the chamber” that leads to the step of “Withdraw air from the chamber”) is less than second pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, pressure after step “Pressurize the chamber” or “Evacuate and pressurize the chamber” that leads to the step of “Open the chamber”, i.e., ambient/atmospheric pressure - p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-25).
As to Claim 16, Truong (‘477) discloses that the second pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, pressure after step “Pressurize the chamber” that leads to the step of “Withdraw air from the chamber”) is less than fourth pressure (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-6, pressure after step “Pressurize the chamber” or “Evacuate and pressurize the chamber” that leads to the step of “Open the chamber”, i.e. ambient/atmospheric pressure - p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-25).
As to Claim 17, Truong (‘477) discloses an apparatus (10) (see Figure 1), comprising:
(a) a sterilization chamber (12);
(b) a vacuum source (18) in fluid communication with the sterilization chamber (12), the vacuum source (18) configured to selectively apply a vacuum to the sterilization chamber (12) to decrease pressure within the sterilization chamber (12) to a first pressure (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 15-17 and 21-23);
(c) a module (28) having a sterilant, the module (28) being in fluid communication (via 30, 32) with the sterilization chamber (12) to permit application of the sterilant to the sterilization chamber (12); and
(d) a valve (e.x. 22) in fluid communication with the sterilization chamber (12) and an atmosphere outside of the sterilization chamber (12) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-28), the valve (e.x. 22) being operable to selectively open and close a vent path (e.x. 20) between the sterilization chamber (12) and the atmosphere (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0027] – lines 23-28).
As to Claim 18, Truong (‘477) discloses a system (10) (see Figure 1) comprising:
the apparatus of claim 17 (see entire document, particularly Figure 1; see rejection of claim 17 above); and
a medical device (14) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 8 [0051], p. 11 – claim 1(a), p. 12 – claim 26).
As to Claim 19, Truong (‘477) discloses that the medical device (14) is an endoscope (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 8 [0051] – lines 4-8, where endoscopes intrinsically comprise lumens and thus, instruments with lumen(s) intrinsically includes endoscope).
As to Claim 20, Truong (‘477) discloses that the medical device (14) is a plurality of endoscopes (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 4 [0027] – lines 3-4, p. 8 [0051] – lines 4-11, where endoscopes intrinsically comprise lumens and thus, instruments with lumen(s) intrinsically includes endoscope).
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricciardi (20100226821).
As to Claim 17, Ricciardi (‘821) discloses an apparatus (see entire document, particularly Figure 12), comprising:
(a) a sterilization chamber (16);
(b) a vacuum source in fluid communication (via vacuum line exhaust) with the sterilization chamber (16) (see Figure 12), the vacuum source configured to selectively apply a vacuum to the sterilization chamber (16) to decrease pressure within the sterilization chamber to a first pressure (see entire document, particularly p. 18 [0130] – lines 1-8 and last 6 lines);
(c) a module (15, 51, 18, 04, 11, 44) having a sterilant (20), the module (15, 51, 18) being in fluid communication (i.e. via 18) with the sterilization chamber (16) to permit application of the sterilant (20) to the sterilization chamber (16); and
(d) a valve (35, 40) in fluid communication with the sterilization chamber (16) and an atmosphere outside of the sterilization chamber (16), the valve (35, 40) being operable to selectively open and close a vent path (35/72, 18, 40, 54, 35/39/exhaust) between the sterilization chamber (16) and the atmosphere to increase pressure within the sterilization chamber (16) to a second pressure (see Figures 12).
As to Claim 18, Ricciardi (‘821) discloses a system (see entire document, particularly Figure 12) comprising:
the apparatus of claim 17 (see entire document, particularly Figure 12; see rejection of claim 17 above); and
a medical device (01).
As to Claim 19, Ricciardi (‘821) discloses that the medical device (01) is an endoscope (see entire document, particularly Figures 4-5, 8-11 and 14-19, p. 8 [0079] – line 6).
As to Claim 20, Ricciardi (‘821) discloses that the medical device (01) is a plurality of endoscopes (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2, 4-5, 8-11 and 14-19, p. 8 [0079] – lines 6-7).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 17-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/196,133 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation “activate…” in claim 1 of the reference application includes various methods to activate components such as “selectively activating…” as set forth in claim 1 of current application particularly when steps/stages with insertion/extraction of objects/instruments from the device are involved. Claims 2-4 of the current application are identical to claims 2-4 of the reference application. In addition, the limitation “to apply a vacuum” in claim 18 of the reference application encompasses various methods of application such as “to selectively apply a vacuum” as set forth in claim 17 of current application particularly when steps/stages with insertion/extraction of objects/instruments from the device are involved. Claims 18 and 20 of the current application is identical to claims 19-20 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: WO20172182832, WO2015031999, EP0707186, EP1166802, WO9317726, WO2005118002, ES2021702, 9522202, 4908188.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758