DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2024 and 05/29/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 02/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “the cap includes the first portion and the second portion”. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the cap includes the second portion” which is illustrated in Fig. 11A-B of the present disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 2006/0052666).
With regards to claim 1:
Kumar et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 1 below) a fluid supply system for an endoscope, the fluid supply system comprising:
a first container (20) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid;
a second container (1) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid; and
a coupling mechanism (21) having a first portion (left side of tube (21)) and a second portion (right side of tube (21)), and a lumen extending therebetween, wherein the first portion of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the first container (20) and the second portion is configured to engage with the second container (1); and
wherein the first portion includes a first fluid port in fluid communication with the first container (20) via the lumen; and
wherein the first container (20) and the second container (1) are in fluid communication via the lumen.
PNG
media_image1.png
1575
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1
With regards to claim 11:
Kumar et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 1 above) a coupling mechanism (21) for an endoscope comprising:
a first portion (left side of tube (21)) configured to engage with a first container (20);
a second portion (right side of tube (21)) configured to engage with a second container;
a lumen (passage in the tube (21)) extending from the first portion to the second portion;
a first fluid port of the first portion, the first fluid port in fluid communication with the lumen; and
a second fluid port of the second portion, the second fluid port is configured to be in fluid communication with a volume defined by the second container (1) when the second portion engages the second container.
With regards to claim 12:
Kumar et al. discloses the coupling mechanism of claim 11, wherein the second portion includes a valve (23) configured to control a flow of fluid through the lumen extending from the first portion to the second portion.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IWASAKI (US 2023/0255448).
With regards to claim 17:
IWASAKI discloses (refer to Fig. 2 below) a fluid supply system for an endoscope, the fluid supply system comprising:
a first container (21) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid;
a second container (22) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid; and
a coupling mechanism (29) having a first portion (27, 29) and a second portion (29, 34), and a lumen extending therebetween, wherein the first portion of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the first container (21) and the second portion is configured to engage with the second container (22);
wherein the first container (21) and the second container (22) are in fluid communication via the lumen;
wherein the first portion (27, 29) of the coupling mechanism further includes a first fluid port (1) configured to engage with a first end of a first tubing (28), the first tubing (28) having a second end configured to engage with the endoscope (5); and
wherein the second portion (29, 34) of the coupling mechanism further includes a second fluid port (2) configured to engage with a first end of a second tubing (34), the second tubing having a second end configured to engage with a fluid supply (fluid in the container (22)).
PNG
media_image2.png
1619
1254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merchant (US 2020/0330326).
The recitation “for an endoscopy” is considered to be a name given the claimed device relative to its intended use. From M.P.E.P. §2111.02 (II):
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997).
As evidenced by the explanation given below, the claimed structure finds their equivalents in the reference(s) applied. As such the device of Merchant is readable as a “a fluid supply system for an endoscope”.
With regards to claim 1:
Merchant discloses (refer to Fig. 3 below) a fluid supply system for an endoscope, the fluid supply system comprising:
a first container (24) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid (22);
a second container (12) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid (20); and
a coupling mechanism (10) having a first portion (1) and a second portion (2), and a lumen extending therebetween, wherein the first portion of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the first container (24) and the second portion is configured to engage with the second container (12); and
wherein the first portion includes a first fluid port (104) in fluid communication with the first container (10) via the lumen; and
wherein the first container (24) and the second container (12) are in fluid communication via the lumen.
[AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
1568
1190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
With regards to claim 2:
Merchant discloses the fluid supply system of claim 1, wherein the first container (24) is an intravenous (IV) bag, and an end of the first portion of the coupling mechanism is a bag spike (S) configured to be coupled to the IV bag.
With regards to claim 3:
Merchant discloses the fluid supply system of claim 1, wherein the coupling mechanism is a cap (C) configured to cover an opening of the second container (12).
With regards to claim 4:
Merchant discloses the fluid supply system of claim 3, wherein the first fluid port is configured to engage with a first end of a first tubing (14), the first tubing having a second end (not shown) configured to engage with the endoscope (not shown).
With regards to claim 11:
Merchant discloses (refer to Fig. 3 above) a coupling mechanism (10) for an endoscope comprising:
a first portion (1) configured to engage with a first container (24);
a second portion (2) configured to engage with a second container (12);
a lumen (passage in coupling) extending from the first portion to the second portion;
a first fluid port of the first portion (1), the first fluid port in fluid communication with the lumen; and
a second fluid port of the second portion (2), the second fluid port is configured to be in fluid communication with a volume defined by the second container (12) when the second portion engages the second container.
With regards to claim 13:
Merchant discloses the coupling mechanism of claim 11, wherein the first container (24) is an intravenous (IV) bag, and the first portion includes a bag spike (S) configured to be coupled to the IV bag.
With regards to claim 14:
Kumar et al. discloses the coupling mechanism of claim 11, further comprising:
a cap (C) and the cap includes the second portion.
Claim(s) 1, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gobi Frattini (US 2016/0000650).
The recitation “for an endoscopy” is considered to be a name given the claimed device relative to its intended use. From M.P.E.P. §2111.02 (II):
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997).
As evidenced by the explanation given below, the claimed structure finds their equivalents in the reference(s) applied. As such the device of Gobi Frattini is readable as a “a fluid supply system for an endoscope”.
With regards to claim 1:
Gobi Frattini discloses (refer to Fig. 4 below) a fluid supply system for an endoscope, the fluid supply system comprising:
a first container (9) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid (70);
a second container (2) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid (50); and
a coupling mechanism (8) having a first portion (60) and a second portion (6), and a lumen extending therebetween, wherein the first portion of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the first container (9) and the second portion is configured to engage with the second container (2); and
wherein the first portion includes a first fluid port (20) in fluid communication with the first container (9) via the lumen; and
wherein the first container (9) and the second container (2) are in fluid communication via the lumen.
PNG
media_image4.png
1543
1071
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4
With regards to claim 7:
Gobi Frattini discloses the fluid supply system of claim 1, wherein the second container is configured to receive a fluid from the first container through the lumen extending from the first portion to the second portion of the coupling mechanism based on a pressure at the second container (pressure in the container (2) is decreased as the fluid (50) is flowing out (via connections (3, 4)) of the container will allow the fluid (70) easily flows into the container (2)).
Claim(s) 1, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US 2015/0005734).
The recitation “for an endoscopy” is considered to be a name given the claimed device relative to its intended use. From M.P.E.P. §2111.02 (II):
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997).
As evidenced by the explanation given below, the claimed structure finds their equivalents in the reference(s) applied. As such the device of Inoue et al. is readable as a “a fluid supply system for an endoscope”.
With regards to claim 1:
Inoue et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 5 below) a fluid supply system for an endoscope, the fluid supply system comprising:
a first container (21) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid;
a second container (10) having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid; and
a coupling mechanism (25, 23, 3) having a first portion (24A) and a second portion (24B), and a lumen extending therebetween, wherein the first portion of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the first container (21) and the second portion is configured to engage with the second container (10); and
wherein the first portion includes a first fluid port (24A) in fluid communication with the first container (21) via the lumen; and
wherein the first container (21) and the second container (10) are in fluid communication via the lumen.
With regards to claim 8:
Inoue et al. discloses the fluid supply system of claim 1, wherein the first container (21) is a first intravenous (IV) bag, and an end of the first portion of the coupling mechanism includes a first bag spike (23) configured to be coupled to the first IV bag, and wherein the second container (10) is a second IV bag and an end of the second portion of the coupling mechanism includes a second bag spike (3A) configured to be coupled to the second IV bag.
PNG
media_image5.png
938
947
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9-10, 15-16, and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Minh Le, whose telephone number is 571-270-3805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH Q LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights