DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 01/24/2024. Claim(s) 1–21 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17–21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim at this time. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
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:
“a drying gas generation system for providing drying gas” in claim 1, which has been interpreted to mean “a pressurized tank holding N2 or CO2 or an air pump with a filter, dehumidifier, or heater;” and
“means for adjusting the biasing force of the spring” in claim 7, which has been interpreted to mean “a spacer of adjustable length or a threaded spacer.”
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 § 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.
Claims 1 & 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,648,730 to Radford et al.
With regard to claim 1, Radford discloses a drying system for drying medical instruments (abstract), the drying system comprising: a drying chamber (150) configured to receive a medical instrument (30) (Fig. 10; Col. 3, lines 58–62), a drying gas generation system (50) for providing drying gas (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 39–41), a hose system including a hose (52, 158) through which the drying gas is discharged from the drying gas generation system (50) (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 39–45), and a valve (202) arranged in a wall of the drying chamber (150) (Figs. 10 & 18; Col. 9, lines 14–16), the hose system (52, 158) is connected to the valve (202) for the valve (202) to provide the drying gas into the drying chamber (150) (Figs. 10 & 18; Col. 9, lines 14–20), wherein the valve (202) is configured to discharge the drying gas exiting the valve (202) into the drying chamber in a main flow direction (Figs. 2, 10, & 18).
With regard to claim 11, Radford further discloses the drying chamber is configured to receive the medical instrument in a specific position (Fig. 10; Col. 3, lines 58–62).
With regard to claim 12, Radford further discloses a holding device (80a, 80b, 90a, 90b) disposed within the drying chamber (150) (Figs. 4–6; Col. 6, lines 7–26), wherein the medical instrument is arranged in the holding device inside the drying chamber (150) (Figs. 4–6; Col. 6, lines 7–26).
With regard to claim 13, Radford further discloses a direction of the main flow direction is such that the drying gas discharging into the drying chamber impinges on a specific area of the medical instrument to be dried (Col. 5, lines 39–45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0237981 to Glass et al in view of Radford.
With regard to claim 1, Glass discloses a drying system capable of drying medical instruments (abstract), the drying system comprising: a drying chamber (112) configured to receive a [an article to be dried] (¶ 0020; presently capable of holding a medical instrument), a drying gas generation system (140) for providing drying gas (¶ 0033), a hose system (122, 130, 160) including a hose through which the drying gas is discharged from the drying gas generation system (140) (¶¶ 0026–0031), the hose system is connected to the valve (127, 129, 137, 139) for the valve (127, 129, 137, 139) to provide the drying gas into the drying chamber (112) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0027, 0030), wherein the valve (127, 129, 137, 139) is configured to discharge the drying gas exiting the valve (127, 129, 137, 139) into the drying chamber in a main flow direction (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0027, 0030).
Glass fails to disclose a valve arranged in a wall of the drying chamber. Radford teaches a valve (202) arranged in a wall of the drying chamber (150) (Figs. 10 & 18; Col. 9, lines 14–16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the article dryer of Glass with the wall mounted valve of Radford because such a combination would have had the added benefit of having the valve securely mounted.
With regard to claim 2, Glass further discloses the valve comprises an outlet nozzle (127, 129, 137, 139) configured to predetermine the main flow direction of the drying gas entering the drying chamber (112) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0027, 0030).
With regard to claim 3, Glass as previously combined with Radford further discloses the valve (Glass: 127, 129, 137, 139) is configured to discharge the drying gas into the drying chamber (Glass: 112) such that the main flow direction is at an angle to the surface normal of the wall on which the valve (Glass: 127, 129, 137, 139) is arranged (Glass: Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0027, 0030; Radford: Figs. 10 & 18; Col. 9, lines 14–16).
With regard to claim 4, Glass as previously combined with Radford further discloses the angle between the surface normal of the wall and the main flow direction is greater than or equal to 0 degrees (Glass: Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0027, 0030; Radford: Figs. 10 & 18; Col. 9, lines 14–16).
Claims 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford in view of DE 10-2016-116288 to Heinmann (citations are directed to the translation provided by Applicant).
With regard to claim 5, Radford fails to disclose the valve has a nozzle tappet configured in a first position to close the nozzle and prevent fluidic communication between the hose system and the drying chamber. Heinmann teaches the valve has a nozzle tappet (19) configured in a first position to close the nozzle and prevent fluidic communication between the hose system (33) and the drying chamber (3) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Radford with the nozzle tappet of Heinmann because such a combination would have been the simple substitution of one type of nozzle for another, yielding only predictable results.
With regard to claim 6, Radford as previously combined with Heinmann further discloses the nozzle tappet (Heinmann: 19) is biased by a spring Heinmann: 26) such that the nozzle tappet (Heinmann: 19) is held in the first position in an unloaded state (Figs. 2 & 3; ¶ 0056–0057).
With regard to claim 7, Radford as previously combined with Heinmann fails to explicitly disclose the valve comprises means for adjusting the biasing force of the spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include means for adjusting the biasing force of the spring, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
With regard to claim 8, Radford as previously combined with Heinmann further discloses the drying gas applied to the valve by the drying gas generation system via the hose system acts against a spring force biasing the nozzle tappet (Heinmann: 19) (Heinmann: Figs. 2 & 3; ¶ 0056–0057), so that the valve opens above a predetermined opening pressure and the drying gas flows into the drying chamber (Heinmann: 3) (Heinmann: Figs. 2 & 3; ¶ 0056–0057).
Claims 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass in view of Radford, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,217,698 to Siegel et al.
With regard to claim 9, Glass fails to disclose the valve comprises a flange configured to seal an opening in the wall of the drying chamber in which the valve is arranged. Siegel teaches the valve (58, 72) comprises a flange (102) configured to seal an opening in the wall of the drying chamber in which the valve (58, 72) is arranged (Fig. 7; Col. 7, lines 51–61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying apparatus of Glass with the valve flange of Siegel because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing an effective and durable seal.
With regard to claim 10, Glass as previously combined with Siegel further discloses the flange (Siegel: 102) comprises a sealing groove (Siegel: 100) configured to hold a seal (Siegel: 104) (Siegel: Fig. 7; Col. 7, lines 51–61).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford in view of Official Notice.
Radford fails to explicitly disclose the specific area of the medical instrument to be dried comprises at least one of a handpiece, a plug, a cable, or an operating element of the medical instrument. However, Radford specifically mentions using the device with the [Da] Vinci ™ surgical system which utilizes those elements. Furthermore, handpieces, plugs, cables and operating elements of the medical instrument are old and well-known in the art, especially in the area of robotic surgery. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the surgical components known to the prior art in the drying device of Radford because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing the components to be thoroughly dried before being used.
Claims 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford.
With regard to claim 15, Radford further discloses the hose system comprises a plurality of hoses respectively corresponding to the plurality of valves, and further comprising a manifold in which the drying gas provided by the drying gas generation system is distributed to the plurality of hoses.
Radford fails to disclose the valve comprises a plurality of valves. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of valves, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 16, Radford further discloses a measuring circuit arranged in at least one of the manifold, the hose system or the drying gas generation system (Col. 7, lines 7–26), wherein the measuring circuit is configured to measure properties of the drying gas and to direct the measured property to a controller (180) configured to control the drying gas generation system (50) such that the property maintains a desired range (Col. 7, lines 7–26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights