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. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 15 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner failed to show serious burden as there will be overlapping search amongst the groups. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage application filed under 35 USC 371. The examiner considered unity of invention and there is no requirement to demonstrate a serious examination burden, see MPEP 1850. There is overlapping subject matter in the form of a shared technical feature, which Applicant did not argue with respect to the prior art document EP 17709979 to Lin et al. The shared technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art and therefore, there is a lack of unity. In any case, the Examiner notes that the claimed apparatus requires significant structural features not required by the method and the claimed method requires significant process steps that are not required by the claimed apparatus. Thus, the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) which is sufficient to establish burden, see MPEP 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 January 2026.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 417. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par 00025, “ortho-phthalaldeyde” should read --ortho-phthalaldehyde--.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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: “a module” and “one or more indicators” in claim 1, “temperature control feature” in claim 6, and “indicator loading feature” in claim 11.
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. The module is referred throughout the instant specification as “indicator module”, which assumes the form of two wells and an indicator defined as a “test strip or test coupon” (par 00065). The indicator loading feature is interpreted as a holder hat loads test coupon in to position relative to the light sources and light detectors (par 00067). The temperature control feature is interpreted simply as a heating or cooling element, structured e.g., as a resistive heater (par 00064).
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
8. 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.
9. Claims 7-8 and 12-13 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.
10. Claim 7 recites the limitations "the first temperature" and “the first temperature sensor” in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as these features are introduced in claim 4 but claim 7 does not depend from claim 4.
11. Claim 8 recites the limitations "the first temperature" and “the second temperature” in the second and third line, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as a first temperature is only introduced in claim 4 but claim 8 does not depend from claim 4. Further, claim 8 recites the limitation "the temperature control feature" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a temperature control feature is introduced in claim 6 but claim 8 does not depend from claim 6.
12. Claim 12 recites the limitation “comprising a select one or more of a pressure sensor, a concentration sensor, and a flowrate sensor”, and it is unclear whether at least one of each sensor type is required by the claim or whether simply one of these sensor types will satisfy the claim. Further, it is unclear whether all of “respective pressure, concentration, and flowrate data” would be provided, or whether e.g. a pressure sensor that provides respective pressure data would satisfy the claim. For examination purposes, the claim is treated broadly as a selection from a list of alternatives, see MPEP 2173.05(h).
13. Claim 13 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on indefinite claim 12. Claim 13 further recites the limitation “wherein a select one or more of a first pressure within the module, a first concentration within the module, and a first flowrate of the one or more fluids within the module”, and it is unclear whether at least one of each data type is required by the claim or whether simply one of these data types will satisfy the claim. For examination purposes, the claim is treated broadly as a selection from a list of alternatives, see MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-3 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20060218994 A1).
16. Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an apparatus for reprocessing a device (apparatus 10 which contains a washing chamber 20 for washing medical devices and instruments, par 0150, FIG. 9) comprising:
(a) a basin configured to receive the device for reprocessing (FIG. 9, washing chamber 20 for washing medical devices and instruments, par 0150) wherein the basin is further configured to receive one or more fluids to aid in reprocessing (clean wash water to enter chamber 20, pars 0150-0152);
(b) one or more pumps configured to transfer the one or more fluids to and from the basin (Pump 60 pumps the washing or rinsing liquid from washing chamber 20…and to the washing chamber 20, par 0150, FIG. 9);
(c) one or more valves configured to direct the one or more fluids being transferred by the one or more pumps (FIG. 9, valves 41, 46, and 47; pars 0150 and 0152); and
(d) a module fluidly connected with, but physically separate from, the basin (FIG. 9, conduit 55 with electrode probe 70, pars 0150-0152).
Lin teaches in the embodiment of FIG. 9 an analogous indicator mechanism involving an electrode probe 70 positioned in the conduit 55 to monitor cleanliness wherein if the potential of the rinse liquid following the wash cycle is substantially equal to the time 0 potential reading, adequate cleaning has been achieved (par 0152). Lin does not teach in this embodiment the specific structural equivalent required by the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the indicator module.
In another embodiment, Lin teaches wherein the module is configured to receive one or more indicators (cleaning indicator, standard 138…used with the above mentioned cleaning apparatus, par 0177; to simulate the [device] needed to determine the cleaning efficiency, pars 0174-0176), wherein the one or more indicators are configured to signal when a predetermined level of decontamination has been achieved (cleaning efficiency can be determined visually or via an instrument, par 0184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the FIG. 9 embodiment one or more soil indicator modules positioned in the conduit as taught by Lin in FIGS. 16A-B, pars 0174-0181. Doing so would predictably provide the same ability to reliably signal when a predetermined level of decontamination has been achieved in a simulation of the cleaning process within the basin, as Lin teaches in the operation of the FIG. 9 apparatus (pars 0150-0152).
17. Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitation wherein a first condition exists within the basin, and wherein a second condition exists within the module, wherein the first condition is measured or calculated, and wherein the second condition is controlled based on the measured or calculated first condition such that the second condition within the module substantially matches the first condition within the basin is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
Examiner notes that the FIG. 9 device of Lin would be capable of reaching a state wherein a first condition exists within the basin (cleanness of the items to be cleaned in chamber, par 0167), and wherein a second condition exists within the module (cleanness of the soil covered standard, par 0167), wherein the first condition is measured or calculated (standardized indication of the cleanness of items…established through experiments, par 0167), and wherein the second condition is controlled (soil level and the cleaning efficiency of the standard 120 can be controlled, par 0168) based on the measured or calculated first condition (correlation between the cleanness of the item to be cleaned and the cleanness of the soil covered standard 120 for a particular apparatus configuration can be established through experiments, par 0167) such that the second condition within the module substantially matches the first condition within the basin (when the standard is completely cleaned the items to be cleaned is guaranteed to be cleaned completely, par 0168).
18. Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitation wherein the one or more fluids received by the basin are transferred to the module such that the basin and the module contain the same fluid is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
Examiner notes that the FIG. 9 device of Lin as modified above is capable of achieving wherein the one or more fluids received by the basin are transferred to the module such that the basin and the module contain the same fluid (pump 60 pumps the washing or rinsing liquid from washing chamber 20…into liquid conduit 55, par 0150).
19. Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more indicators comprise (embodiments of the apparatus of the invention illustrated in FIGS. 9-15d can employ one or more additional soil detectors, par 0174) a reference well (additional substrate to mimic real world conditions, par 0178, FIG. 16B) and a sample well (two substrates 140 and 142 held in parallel, pars 0177-0178, FIG. 16A), wherein the module comprises “one or more detectors for detecting inorganic soil in combination with an ultraviolet-visible detector suitable for detecting protein and other organic species” (par 0174).
Although Lin does not specifically disclose the arrangement of a reference light source, a reference light detector, a sample light source, and a sample light source detector, Lin does teach wherein the use of a spectrophotometer is preferable to detect protein and other organic species (par 0174) on the soil indicator, which is embodied in FIGS. 16A-B as a reference substrate (FIG. 16B, 150) and a sample substrate (FIG. 16A, 140 and 142) that are preferably transparent (par 0179). When describing the spectrophotometer in another embodiment, a detector and light source are positioned with space between for the transparent analyte having a detectable color (par 0166), an analogous arrangement to the reference and/or test soil indicator. Lin further teaches that more than one detector may be advantageously used (par 0174). Thus, to determine the soil level by an instrument during the cleaning cycle (pars 0183-0184), a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange more than one detector and more than one light source such that the reference light detector detects light transmitted from the reference light source through the reference well and the sample light detector detects light transmitted from the sample light source through the sample well, as the source/detector are taught to operate in this manner individually with a transparent sample therebetween, and the embodiment of FIGS. 16A-B teaches the utility of having a dual soil detector setup with clean reference and soiled test samples.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the soil detectors of Lin such that a reference light detector detects light transmitted from a reference light source through the reference well and a sample light detector detects light transmitted from a sample light source through the sample well. Doing so would predictably provide a reliable UV-Vis spectrophotometry reading for the reference cleanliness target and the sample, enabling comparison of light transmission to achieve the desired cleanliness level in the cleaning process.
20. Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein a successful decontamination state exists when the light transmission detected at the reference light detector and the sample light detector is substantially equal (if the soil detected in step (b) is substantially equal to the soil detected in step (a), the device is considered to be sufficiently cleaned, par 0147).
21. Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the module comprises an indicator loading feature (holder 148 can be a clamp, clip, tape, screw, rubber band, snap-on cap, or any other holding method, par 0181) configured to position the one or more indicators within the module (to hold the substrates together, par 0181).
22. Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a concentration sensor positionable within the module (FIG. 9, electrode probe 70 positioned within conduit 55 flow module) to provide respective concentration data (potential reading may be taken by electrode probe 70…utilized for soil detection, pars 0150-0151).
23. Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The limitation wherein a select one or more of a first pressure within the module, a first concentration within the module, and a first flowrate of the one or more fluids within the module are adjusted to substantially match a second pressure within the basin or within one or more channels of the device, a second concentration within the basin or within the one or more channels of the device, and a second flowrate of the one or more fluids within the basin or within the one or more channels of the device is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
Examiner notes that the FIG. 9 device of Lin as modified above is capable of achieving the condition wherein a first concentration within the module is adjusted to substantially match a second concentration within the basin (valves can be adjusted at different levels to control the fluid communication between chamber and enclosure…thus, the cleaning efficiency in chamber and enclosure will be closer to each other, par 0169; soil level in the washing solution is monitored, pars 0152 and 0169).
24. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20060218994 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ulhenhaut et al (US 20200116659 A1).
25. Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization may be driven by heated air, heated liquid, or steam (pars 0011-0012). Lin does not teach a first temperature sensor located within the basin and configured to measure a first temperature of a select one of the one or more fluids within the basin.
Ulhenhaut teaches an analogous heat treatment device for sterilizing objects such as an endoscope (pars 0001-0002 and 0046-0051) wherein a temperature sensor 4 is arranged on the side of the Peltier element 3 that faces the process chamber 2, or, to be more precise, the cavity of the dummy endoscope 15 (par 0064, FIGS. 1 and 5). By facing the process chamber, the temperature sensor would be configured to measure a first temperature of a select one of the one or more fluids within the basin and advantageously ensure that the same sterilizing atmosphere has developed in the cavity of the endoscope as in the rest of the process chamber, as taught by Ulhenhaut (par 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the basin of Lin a temperature sensor that faces the cavity of the device being sterilized as taught by Ulhenhaut. Doing so would predictably ensure that the device experiences sufficient sterilization temperatures in a similar manner to the dummy endoscope taught by Ulhenhaut.
26. Regarding claim 5, Lin as modified by Ulhenhaut teaches the apparatus of claim 4, comprising a material surrounding the first temperature sensor (Ulhenhaut FIG. 1, dummy endoscope 15 surrounds device 1 having temperature sensor 4) such that the first temperature measured by the first temperature sensor is representative of temperature within the internal region of the device (thermocouple 4 faces the cavity of the endoscope 15, par 0054).
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the material is configured to provide insulating properties that resemble insulating properties the device provides to an internal region of the device. However, Ulhenhaut further teaches that the thermocouple is surrounded by a synthetic resin mass that serves as a thermal insulation for the device (par 0056), such that the thermocouple is insulated thermally from the basin and the temperature measured resembles the internal region of the device (par 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include surrounding the temperature sensor of modified Lin a material that has insulating properties as taught by Ulhenhaut. Doing so would predictably restrict heat transfer from the outside basin directly to the temperature sensor as taught by Ulhenhaut (par 0065), thus similarly resembling the insulating properties the device provides to an internal region of the device.
27. Claims 6, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20060218994 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20180110892 A1).
28. Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization may be driven by heated air, heated liquid, or steam (pars 0011-0012). Lin does not teach a temperature control feature configured to provide heat or cooling to the one or more fluids received by the module.
Yang teaches an analogous heat treatment device for sterilizing objects such as an endoscope (pars 0019-0022) wherein temperature sensors are in operative communication with an inline heater to heat the liquid to optimum temperatures for cleaning and/or disinfection (par 0026). This liquid heating element i.e. temperature control feature is located within a circulation loop (FIG. 2) analogous to the conduit 55 of Lin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the circulation module of Lin a temperature control feature as taught by Yang. Doing so would predictably provide the advantageous ability to heat the liquid to optimum temperatures for cleaning and/or disinfection for the fluids received by the module as taught by Yang.
29. Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization may be driven by heated air, heated liquid, or steam (pars 0011-0012). Lin does not teach a second temperature sensor located within the module, wherein the first temperature and the second temperature are provided as inputs to a controller and define a temperature feedback loop, wherein the controller controls the temperature control feature based upon the temperature feedback loop.
Yang teaches an analogous heat treatment device for sterilizing objects such as an endoscope (pars 0019-0022) wherein temperature sensors are in operative communication with an inline heater to heat the liquid to optimum temperatures for cleaning and/or disinfection (par 0026). Another temperature sensor may be employed in the sensor chamber (par 0055). These two temperature sensors, including one within a circulation loop (FIG. 2) and another within a chamber (par 0055), provide input to a microcontroller which controls cleaning and/or disinfection cycles (par 0032), wherein the controller controls the temperature control feature based upon a temperature feedback loop (Based upon temperature and/or concentration values of disinfectant in the used disinfectant solution, controller 20 may be utilized to adjust…its temperature, par 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the device of Lin a first and second temperature sensor to provide inputs to a controller as taught by Yang. Doing so would predictably improve temperature control, as the controller can control temperature based upon a feedback loop to e.g., provide an effective and minimally harmful exposure to the disinfectant as taught by Yang (par 0063).
30. Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more conditions within the module are configured to substantially match respective conditions within the one or more internal channels of the device positioned within the basin (cleaning indicator to simulate the mated area…to mimic certain real world conditions, pars 0176-0178). Lin does not teach one or more flush lines, wherein the device comprises one or more internal channels, wherein the one or more flush lines are configured to connect with a respective one of the one or more internal channels of the device to direct the one or more fluids to the one or more internal channels of the device.
Yang teaches an analogous heat treatment device for sterilizing objects such as an endoscope (pars 0019-0022) wherein any internal channels of the endoscope are connected with flush lines such that liquid and air can be directed through the flush lines and any internal channels of the endoscope (par 0022). The system of Yang also includes one or more integral sensors to measure parameters relating to the reprocessing fluids that are positioned along the recirculation line (par 0052), analogous to the position of the module in Lin.
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 recirculation line of Lin to include one or more flush lines configured to connect with internal channels of a device as taught by Yang. Doing so would predictably ensure the removal of waste material from the interior channels (Yang par 0042) and by virtue of fluidly connecting to circulate the fluid in the module, would predictably substantially match conditions within the one or more internal channels of the device positioned within the basin with the conditions in the module.
31. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 20060218994 A1) and Yang (US 20180110892 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ulhenhaut et al (US 20200116659 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lin as modified by Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the temperature control feature is controlled based upon the first temperature measured by the first temperature sensor (Yang par 0026). The combination does not teach that this first temperature sensor is located within the basin.
Ulhenhaut teaches an analogous heat treatment device for sterilizing objects such as an endoscope (pars 0001-0002 and 0046-0051) wherein a temperature sensor 4 is arranged on the side of the Peltier element 3 that faces the process chamber 2, or, to be more precise, the cavity of the dummy endoscope 15 (par 0064, FIGS. 1 and 5). By facing the process chamber, the temperature sensor would be configured to measure a first temperature of a select one of the one or more fluids within the basin and advantageously ensure that the same sterilizing atmosphere has developed in the cavity of the endoscope as in the rest of the process chamber, as taught by Ulhenhaut (par 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the first temperature sensor of modified Lin within the basin as taught by Ulhenhaut, as doing so would predictably enable control of the conditions within the endoscope via the temperature control feature.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758