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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-15) and Species B (Fig.4) in the response of 9 December, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant avers claims 2-3, 8-12 and 16-20 should be withdrawn as drawn to nonelected inventions and species.
One traversal is on the grounds that Figs 5a-c, listed as different species C-E in the requirement, are different views of the same configuration. In this case, as the applicant has not elected any of species C-E nor expressed the desire to elect a combination of species C-E, this argument is moot.
Another traversal is on the grounds that shorthand nomenclature was used to refer to groups of figures, for example in the restriction, “Fig.6” was used to refer to all of Figs.6a-e. However, it is clear that when Figs.6a-e are present, for example, “Fig.6” is referring to all of Figs.6a-e. Therefore, this argument is found to be unpersuasive.
This restriction requirement is hereby made final. Claims 2-3, 8-12 and 16-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 4-7 and 13-15 are examined.
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: fluid control mechanism in claims 1, 6-7 and 13-15.
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, 4-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bendele et al. (US 2012/0095391).
In regards to Claim 1, Bendele discloses a connector arranged and configured to couple a tube set to an endoscope, the connector comprising:
a housing [Fig.8b], the housing comprising:
a first fluid inlet [inlet of 442, Fig.8b, para.98: this is for a water flow path];
a second fluid inlet [inlet of 440, Fig.8b, para.98: this is for an air flow path];
a first fluid outlet [432, Fig.8b, para.98] in selective fluid communication with the first fluid inlet;
a second fluid outlet [430, Fig.8b, para.98] in fluid communication with the second fluid inlet; and
a flow control mechanism [444, 446, 448, Fig.8b, para.98-99: This is equivalent to applicant’s “flow control mechanism” 434, Fig.4, para.75, which is also a duckbill valve: This is 112 (f) interpretation of the term “flow control mechanism”] configured to selectively fluidly couple the first fluid outlet with the first fluid inlet [para.98-99].
In regards to claim 4, Bendele discloses the connector of claim 1, wherein the flow control mechanism comprises a valve [Fig.8b, para.99].
In regards to claim 5, Bendele discloses the connector of claim 4, wherein the valve is a duckbill valve [Fig.8b, para.99].
In regards to claim 6, Bendele discloses the connector of claim 1, wherein the flow control mechanism is over molded with the housing [Fig.8b:The device could be constructed in this fashion. Further, it is inside the housing.].
In regards to claim 7, Bendele discloses the connector of claim 1, wherein the flow control mechanism is configured to open at a predetermined minimum pressure [para.98].
In regards to Claim 13, Bendele discloses a connector arranged and configured to couple a tube set to an endoscope, the connector comprising:
a housing [Fig.8b], the housing comprising:
a first fluid inlet [inlet of 442, Fig.8b, para.98: this is for a water flow path];
a second fluid inlet [inlet of 440, Fig.8b, para.98: this is for an air flow path];
a first fluid outlet [432, Fig.8b, para.98] in selective fluid communication with the first fluid inlet;
a second fluid outlet [430, Fig.8b, para.98] in fluid communication with the second fluid inlet; and
a flow control mechanism [444, 446, 448, Fig.8b, para.98-99: This is equivalent to applicant’s “flow control mechanism” 434, Fig.4, para.75, which is also a duckbill valve: This is 112 (f) interpretation of the term “flow control mechanism”] configured to selectively fluidly couple the first fluid outlet with the first fluid inlet [para.98-99].
wherein the first and second fluid outlets are configured to be coupled to an endoscope [para.98-99: First outlet 432 is explicitly designated for coupling to an endoscope, second outlet 430 implicitly designated so, as it is part of the air flow path that is configured to be coupled to an endoscope.] and when the first and second fluid outlets are uncoupled from the endoscope the flow control mechanism is configured to fluidly isolate the first fluid outlet from the first fluid inlet [para.98, if used in an appropriate fashion].
In regards to claim 14, Bendele discloses the connector of claim 13, wherein the flow control mechanism is configured to selectively open at a predetermined minimum pressure [para.98].
In regards to claim 15, Bendele discloses the connector of claim 13, wherein the flow control mechanism is configured to selectively open upon coupling of the connector with the endoscope [para.98: if coupled to an appropriate endoscope].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakajima (US 4,748,970)
Suzuki et al. (US 5,879,288)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795