Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on February 26, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant acknowledged the withdrawal of claims 7-9 and 18. The Examiner notes that claim 10 requires a plurality of reservoirs with first and last reservoirs, separate from the additional reservoir. This is shown in Fig. 9 and is not part of the Species B (Fig. 7). Independent claims 11 and 19 include a manifold. The use of a manifold in Fig. 7 is not clearly shown or disclosed. How this would work with connector 342 is unclear. Furthermore, the tubing sets set forth in Species B are not clearly present in the disclosed manifold system. For at least these reasons, independent claims 11 and 19 are not generic to Species B and are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 are addressed on the merits below.
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 1-6 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 states “a second tubing subset having a tube with a first end configured to couple to the second port and a second end configured to couple to a first port in fluid communication with a volume of an additional reservoir” where it is unclear whether or not the claim requires the additional reservoir. The additional reservoir appears to be part of the system, but because it is introduced in a wherein clause, this may only be intended to be a functional recitation. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 4 states “the second end of the tube of the first tubing subset is configured to couple to an endoscope” where claim 1 states “a second end configured to couple to an endoscope component”. The dependent claim does not include “component” so it is unclear whether or not the second end is configured to couple to an endoscope or endoscope component. Are these the same ends? The Examiner assumes that they are, but the inconsistency in claim terminology creates ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 also states “the second end of the tube of the second tubing subset is configured to couple to the port in fluid communication with a volume of the additional reservoir” where claim 1 recites “a first port in fluid communication with a volume of an additional reservoir”. Is “the port” in claim 4 the same as “a first port” in claim 1? The Examiner assumes that these are the same ports. Appropriate correction is required.
Finally, claim 4 makes two references to “an endoscope connector” where the Examiner assumes that one is a first endoscope connector and the other is a second endoscope connector. These do not appear to be the same connectors, but because the claim uses the same term twice, there is some ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Kinoshita (US 4,552,130).
Regarding Claim 1, Kinoshita discloses:
A fluid supply system for an endoscope, the system comprising:
a reservoir (35) defining a volume;
a first port (see opening in 35 where 46 connects) in fluid communication with the volume and defining a first lumen (lumen of tube 46) and a first connector (portion of tube that interfaces with the reservoir);
a second port (opening in 35 where 55 connects) in fluid communication with the volume and having a second lumen (lumen of tube 55) and a second connector (portion of tube that interfaces with the reservoir);
a first tubing subset (46) having a tube with a first end configured to couple to the first port (see Fig. 6 where 46 connects to 35) and a second end configured to couple to an endoscope component (see Fig. 6 showing 46 connecting to 60); and
a second tubing subset (55) having a tube with a first end configured to couple to the second port (see Fig. 6 showing 55 connecting to 35) and a second end configured to couple to a first port in fluid communication with a volume of an additional reservoir (see Fig. 6 showing the other end of 55 connecting to a port in reservoir 51).
Regarding Claim 5, Kinoshita further discloses wherein the second tubing subset comprises a first fluid path (34) in communication with a gas source (33) and a second fluid path (through 55) in communication with the volume of the additional reservoir (see Fig. 6 showing the two paths).
Regarding Claim 6, Kinoshita further discloses wherein the second tubing subset comprises a connector (T-junction between 34 and 55) coupling a first length of tubing including the first fluid path and a second length of tubing including the second fluid path with a third length of tubing including the first fluid path and the second fluid path (see Fig. 6 showing 34 and 55 coming together at a junction and continuing in a third direction into 35; claiming the venturi siphon appears as though it would overcome the reference).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 4,552,130) in view of Maurice (US 2017/0265727).
Kinoshita discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose a cap configured to couple to the reservoir, and wherein the cap includes the first port and the second port. Such caps are well-known in the art for covering reservoirs. Maurice teaches one such variation in Fig. 2 with cap 16a having at least two ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kinoshita’s system to include Maurice’s cap. Such a modification provides a means to cover the fluid source to reduce the likelihood it will spill, to keep it free from contaminants, and to allow for connection to tubes as is known in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 4,552,130) in view of Bendele et al. (US 2014/0316205).
Kinoshita discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 3, Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose wherein the first end of the tube of the first tubing subset is configured to be permanently secured to the first port. The Examiner notes that making something permanent or removable is generally considered obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.V.B.-C.). Also, Kinoshita’s reservoirs are within a housing, so permanently securing the tubing to the reservoirs does not change the function of the system. Bendele teaches permanently affixing components to tubing (see Paragraphs 0069 and 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kinoshita’s system to include Bendele’s permanent fixation. Such a modification ensures the tubing does not come detached from the reservoir.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 4,552,130) in view of Wolcott et al. (US 2015/0297063).
Kinoshita discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 4, Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose wherein: the second end of the tube of the first tubing subset is configured to couple to an endoscope includes an endoscope connector having a water port and a gas port; and the second end of the tube of the second tubing subset is configured to couple to the port in fluid communication with a volume of the additional reservoir includes an endoscope connector having a water port and a gas port. Wolcott teaches using connectors that allow for a dual-lumen connection for liquid and gas (outer tube 108 with inner tube 122). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kinoshita’s system to include Wolcott’s connectors. Such a combination provides a means for gas and liquid to be transmitted from one point to another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights