DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-14 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 sensor is arranged at a position where one of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range.”
The recitation of “another” of the first and second side surfaces is unclear. The first and second side surfaces have been recited as an individual surface, and it is unclear as to how there can be another identical surface relative to the defined individual surface being the first and the second side surfaces. The claim only recites one surface, yet further reciting another of said surface. It is likely that the Applicant intends the claim limitation to read “the sensor is arranged at a position where one portion of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range” and will thus be interpreted as such for compact prosecution purposes.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “a tray in which a bottle containing the liquid is arranged”, and is unclear as to whether or not the bottle is required in the medical reprocessor of claim 1. For compact prosecution purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if the bottle is positively recited.
Claim 10 is thus rejected due to the limitation of “comprising the bottle” being unclear as to whether it does or does not further limit claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the other of the first side surface and the second side surface is the first side surface”. It is unclear as to how that is possible when the first side surface is already defined as a set surface stated in claim 1, yet is the combination of the another/other first and second side surfaces. In view the interpretation of claim 1 above regarding a “portion” of the first and second side surfaces, the other portion of the first and second side surfaces (not in the detection range) cannot be said first side and is once again unclear.
The claim 3 language of “the other of the first side surface and the second side surface” will also be interpreted as the “another” portion of the first side surface and the second side surface being arranged outside of the detection range.
Claim 3 also recites “the second direction of the sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the first direction of the sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the sensor is arranged at a position where one of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range.”
The recitation of “another” of the first and second side surfaces is unclear. The first and second side surfaces have been recited as an individual surface, and it is unclear as to how there can be another identical surface relative to the defined individual surface being the first and the second side surfaces. The claim only recites one surface, yet further reciting another of said surface. It is likely that the Applicant intends the claim limitation to read “the sensor is arranged at a position where one portion of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range” and will thus be interpreted as such for compact prosecution purposes.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites “wherein in a state where the bottle is set to a reprocessor for medical equipment”, and is unclear as to whether or not the medical reprocessor structure (which includes the sensor limitations) is positively recited. For compact prosecution purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if the medical reprocessor (with the sensor limitations) is not positively recited, because the preamble of the claim recites a bottle, not an assembly including a bottle.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the other of the first side surface and the second side surface is the first side surface”. It is unclear as to how that is possible when the first side surface is already defined as a set surface stated in claim 11, yet is the combination of the another/other first and second side surfaces. In view the interpretation of claim 1 above regarding a “portion” of the first and second side surfaces, the other portion of the first and second side surfaces (not in the detection range) cannot be said first side and is once again unclear.
The claim 13 language of “the other of the first side surface and the second side surface” will also be interpreted as the “another” portion of the first side surface and the second side surface being arranged outside of the detection range.
Claim 13 also recites “the second direction of the sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the first direction of the sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to a dependency from either claim 1 or 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshii (US 20180345671 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshii teaches a bottle (main tank 81, Fig. 5 and 8) comprising:
a bottom surface (65, Fig. 8);
an upper surface (64, Fig. 8);
a first side surface extending in a first direction from the bottom surface toward the upper surface (62, Fig. 8);
a second side surface extending in an opposite direction of the first direction from the upper surface (see drawing below),
PNG
media_image1.png
451
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second side surface being arranged spaced from the first side surface in a second direction intersecting the first side surface (connection surface provides a staggering step/space from back face 62 by cutting/intersecting it off, Fig. 8); and
a connection surface connecting a side of the upper surface of the first side surface and a side of the bottom surface of the second side surface (connection surface, see drawing above).
Regarding the limitations of “wherein in a state where the bottle is set to a reprocessor for medical equipment including a sensor configured to detect that a liquid is within a detection range, the sensor is arranged at a position where one portion of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range”, these limitations are directed to the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Yoshii and the main tank/bottle structure of Yoshii is capable of being set in a medical reprocessor with the recited sensor structure. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the structure of the main tank 81 is similar to instant claim 11 (and is even similar to Applicant’s specification describing the bottle structure, see Fig. 7). Furthermore, Yoshii teaches the main tank to store a cleaning liquid ([0023]), also reciting a sensor component (83, Fig. 8) attached to the main tank in order to provide a liquid detection level (all of which are similar to the Applicant’s endeavor).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, given the extent and nature of the 112(b) issues regarding the claim language of “wherein the other of the first side surface and the second side surface is the first side surface”, it is not possible to apply the prior art in a direct manner. Examiner points the Applicant to Fig. 8 of Yoshi teaching a similar structure to Applicant’s Fig. 5-8 to meet the claim rejection.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of “wherein the other portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range and in the second direction of the sensor in the state where the bottle is set” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Yoshii and the main tank/bottle structure of Yoshii is capable of being set in a medical reprocessor with the recited sensor structure having another portion of the first side surface and second side surface be arranged outside of the sensor’s detection range. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the structure of the main tank 81 is similar to instant claim 11 (and is even similar to Applicant’s specification describing the bottle structure, see Fig. 7) having said other portion of the first side surface and second side surface. Furthermore, Yoshii teaches the main tank to store a cleaning liquid ([0023]), also reciting a sensor component (83, Fig. 8) attached to the main tank in order to provide a liquid detection level (all of which are similar to the Applicant’s endeavor).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of “wherein the connection surface is arranged inside of the detection range and in the first direction of the sensor in the state where the bottle is set” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Yoshii and the main tank/bottle structure of Yoshii is capable of being set in a medical reprocessor with the recited sensor structure having the connection surface be arranged outside of the sensor’s detection range. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the structure of the main tank 81 is similar to instant claim 11 (and is even similar to Applicant’s specification describing the bottle structure, see Fig. 7) having said connection surface. Furthermore, Yoshii teaches the main tank to store a cleaning liquid ([0023]), also reciting a sensor component (83, Fig. 8) attached to the main tank in order to provide a liquid detection level (all of which are similar to the Applicant’s endeavor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 20080115814 A1), further in view of Yoshii (US 20180345671 A1), further in view of Liu et al. (CN 211245149 U).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa teaches a reprocessor for medical equipment (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a tray (detergent/alcohol tray 11, Fig. 1) in which a bottle containing a liquid is arranged (alcohol tank 11b, Fig. 1-2)
where the bottle is arranged in the tray (alcohol tank 11b, Fig. 2).
Hasegawa is silent to the structure of the alcohol tank, thus failing to teach “a sensor configured to detect that the liquid is within a detection range, wherein in a state where the bottle is arranged in the tray, the bottle having a bottom surface, an upper surface, a first side surface extending in a first direction from the bottom surface toward the upper surface, a second side surface extending in an opposite direction of the first direction from the upper surface, the second side surface being arranged spaced from the first side surface in a second direction intersecting the first side surface, and a connection surface connecting a side of the upper surface of the first side surface and a side of the bottom surface of the second side surface”.
Yoshii teaches a cleaning liquid solution tank/bottle for dispensing a cleaning solution (cleaning liquid supply tank 60 comprising sensor 83 and tank 81, Fig. 8) during a cleaning process ([0032-0035] and [0038]),
having a sensor (83, Fig. 8) configured to detect that the liquid is within a detection range ([0036]),
the bottle (main tank 81, Fig. 8) having a bottom surface (65, Fig. 8), an upper surface (64, Fig. 8), a first side surface extending in a first direction from the bottom surface toward the upper surface (62, Fig. 8), a second side surface extending in an opposite direction of the first direction from the upper surface (see drawing below),
PNG
media_image1.png
451
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second side surface being arranged spaced from the first side surface in a second direction intersecting the first side surface (connection surface provides a staggering step/space from back face 62 by cutting/intersecting it off, Fig. 8), and a connection surface connecting a side of the upper surface of the first side surface and a side of the bottom surface of the second side surface (connection surface, see drawing above).
Hasegawa and Yoshii are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cleaning solution tanks for dispensing a cleaning solution as part of an object cleaning device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: one, substitute the alcohol tank structure with the tank structure as taught by Yoshii (because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of holding a reservoir of cleaning liquid, or in the context of Hasegawa, alcohol), and two, modify the tray/now-modified tank structure of the Hasegawa/Yoshii combination by incorporating a sensor as taught by Yoshii in order to detect a liquid level within the tank and thus detect that the liquid is within a detection range (Yoshii, [0036]).
The Hasegawa/Yoshii combination teaches a liquid level detection sensor (Yoshii, 83, Fig. 8), citing that the sensor’s detection range “is within the height of the detection surface 83b” (Yoshii, Fig. 8 and [0048]) and the sensor “is provided at a specified position in the main tank” (Yoshi, [0036], with a exemplified sensor location shown on back face 62, Fig. 8) without disclosing a set relative position to the tank, thus failing to teach wherein the sensor is arranged at a position where one portion of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range.
Liu teaches a disinfection apparatus (Fig. 1-2) that dispenses a sterilizing liquid (liquid in tank 4, Fig. 1), utilizing a feedback between a sensor that matches the height of the cleaning liquid (liquid level detection sensor 5, Fig. 1) and a controller (19, Fig. 2) to gauge the level of sterilizing liquid dispensed to not exceed a set threshold (“when the sterilizing liquid is to inject slowly sterilizing cylinder 4 and the liquid level meter 5 detects the liquid level height reaches the value set in the controller 19. controller 19 starts the alarm lamp 22, alarm lamp 22 flickers reminding the medical staff to stop injection”, p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
The Hasegawa/Yoshii combination and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cleaning solution/sterilizing liquid tanks for dispensing a cleaning solution/sterilizing liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid level sensor of the Hasegawa/Yoshii combination by incorporating a liquid level sensor feature of moving with the height of the liquid and a controller in communication with said sensor as taught by Liu in order gauge the level of sterilizing liquid dispensed to not exceed a set threshold (Liu, p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
In view of the Liu modification, the limitation of "wherein the sensor is arranged at a position where one portion of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range” is met because at varying cleaning liquid levels in Yoshii’s tank, the liquid level detection sensor feature of Liu would, match a liquid height that is at some point in use/liquid dispensing, at the connection surface of Yoshii’s tank structure (see drawing above). Knowing that the liquid level detection sensor feature of Liu matches the height and Yoshii’s sensor having a detection range that is of the length/height of the sensor itself, the modified sensor of the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination would thus have a detection range that encompasses “one portion of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface” (consequently meaning that “another portion of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range”). The modification of Liu’s floating liquid level sensor would mean the liquid level sensor is functionally at the height of the liquid level within Yoshii’s bottle. As Yoshii’s bottle gets drained from a full to empty liquid capacity, there has to be a specific instance where the sensor would be arranged at the detection range claimed in the above limitation (i.e., “arranged at a position where one of the first side surface and the second side surface and the connection surface is inside of the detection range and another of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range”).
Regarding claim 2, given the extent and nature of the 112(b) issues regarding the claim language of “wherein the other of the first side surface and the second side surface is the first side surface”, it is not possible to apply the prior art in a direct manner. Examiner points the Applicant to Fig. 8 of Yoshi of the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination teaching a similar structure to Applicant’s Fig. 5-8 to meet the claim rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination teaches wherein the other of the first side surface and the second side surface is arranged outside of the detection range (see last paragraph of claim 1 rejection) and in a second direction of the sensor (Yoshii’s sensor 83 in Fig. 6 modified by Liu’s sensor 5 feature in p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation and Fig. 1 would have a height, to which the height “wall” would have a direction normal/perpendicular to said wall, which would be the same direction as the normal direction of the back face 62 and the second side surface of Yoshii, Fig. 8, see drawing below).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination teaches wherein the connection surface (see drawing above) is arranged inside of the detection range (see last paragraph of claim 1 rejection) and in the first direction of the sensor (Yoshii’s sensor 83 in Fig. 6 modified by Liu’s sensor 5 feature in p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation and Fig. 1 would have a height, to which the height “wall” would have a direction that gives it height (i.e., upward), which is the same direction as the normal/perpendicular direction of the connection surface, see drawing above).
Regarding claim 5, the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination teaches a reprocessor body (Hasegawa, apparatus body 2, Fig. 1-2), wherein the tray is openable and closable with respect to the reprocessor body (“The detergent/alcohol tray 11 can be drawn to the front of the apparatus body 2”, Fig. 1 and [0042]), and the sensor is arranged in the reprocessor body (Yoshii’s sensor 83 in Fig. 6 modified by Liu’s sensor 5 feature in p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation and Fig. 1) so that the second side surface is inside of the detection range in a state where the tray is closed (see last paragraph of claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 10, the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination teaches the bottle (Yoshii’s cleaning liquid tank 81, Fig. 8), for the same modification purposes as stated in claim 1 rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 6-9 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:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the structural limitations of the present claim. The closest prior art (alone, or in combination) to the claimed invention is the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination (as applied to claim 1 rejection above), partially teaching the claim 6 limitations of:
a processor to which a detection result of the sensor is inputted (Yoshii’s controller 110 being an external computer, Fig. 1 in communication with sensor 83 of Fig. 8, modified by Liu’s sensor 5 liquid detection level feature and controller 19 feedback system of Fig. 1-2),
wherein the bottle contains the liquid in an amount to be used in a plurality of steps of reprocessing of medical equipment in an unused state (the tank of Yoshii can be used in a plurality of dispensing steps as taught by Liu’s threshold detection from the sensor/controller feedback system).
This combination fails to teach the limitations of:
“when n denotes an integer equal to or larger than 0, the connection surface is provided at a height position where the liquid in an amount that enables n or more and less than (n+1) number of steps of the reprocessing to be performed remains inside the bottle at a time point where the liquid transitions from a state of being in contact with the connection surface to a state of not being in contact with the connection surface in a state where the bottle is arranged in the tray” and “the processor is configured to determine that a remaining number of steps of the reprocessing of the medical equipment which can be performed is n-number of steps when the detection result transitions from a state where the liquid is detected to a state where the liquid is not detected”.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Even though Liu’s teachings of a dispensing threshold volume thus is a “step” of reprocessing in view of Yoshii’s tank having a connection surface (see drawing above), there is no teaching of how many times the sterilizing liquid can be dispensed before a threshold is triggered (i.e., “state of being in contact with the connection surface to a state of not being in contact with the connection surface”). Liu merely teaches the periodical stoppage of the liquid level per dispensing step.
Furthermore, there is no mention of a calculation made by the processor (of any of the mentioned combination references) to determine a remaining number of “steps”/dispensing cycles immediately after the liquid level sensor of the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination crosses the Yoshii’s connection surface’s height of remaining liquid level (alluding to the limitation of “the processor is configured to determine that a remaining number of steps of the reprocessing of the medical equipment which can be performed is n-number of steps”).
Even if the processor was able to make a calculation in view of a further modification of the remaining number of steps in regards to leftover liquid volume (automating a manual calculation, MPEP 2144.04.III), the Hasegawa/Yoshii/Liu combination does not stop detection past the connection surface, which means that the detection result cannot transition “from a state where the liquid is detected to a state where the liquid is not detected”. It would be physically impossible to stop detection past the connection surface, because Liu’s feature of liquid level sensing via the height of the remaining liquid would have to be removed (i.e., the liquid level moves with the sensor, and thus it cannot “stop detection”). The only condition in which a “state where the liquid is not detected” is satisfied is when there is no liquid left in the tank.
When there is no liquid in the tank, this means the number of steps of the reprocessing to be performed remains inside the bottle is zero at the instant when the liquid transitions from a state of being in contact with the connection surface to a state of not being in contact with the connection surface (i.e., “a time point where the liquid transitions from a state of being in contact with the connection surface to a state of not being in contact with the connection surface”). This implies that the connection surface has to be at the same height as the bottom surface of the tank (i.e., now making the tank have one bottom horizontal surface, not a bottom surface and a stepped/staggered connection surface in the tank), which does not make sense and goes against the structure modification of the Hasegawa’s tank via secondary reference Yoshii.
Claims 7-9 are considered allowable subject matter due to a dependency basis from claim 6.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758