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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 of Claim 1, delete “the operation unit is held by the holding portion, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “placement portion” and “holding portion” along with “insertion unit” and “operation unit” in claim 1.
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. In particular, a placement portion corresponds to a tray or a chamber/tank such as that shown as 2 in Figure 1; a holding portion corresponds to a holder or hanger of an endoscope particularly that of the head/handle/operation unit portion of the endoscope such as that shown as 3 in Figure 1; an insertion unit corresponds to the scope/fiberoptic pipe/extension portion of the endoscope such as that shown as Z1 in Figure 1; an operation unit corresponds to the head/handle/operation unit portion of the endoscope such as that shown as or pointed to by reference character Z in Figure 1.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hanger portions” in claim 2; “cushion member” in claim 5; “handle portion” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 3 and 8-9 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 3 recites the limitation "the operations units" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of operations units" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 3, it is not clear particular configuration the limitation “such that the operation units adjacent to each other are alternatively arranged in a state where the plurality of operation units are hooked” is attempting to set forth, whether the limitation is attempting to indicate a configuration of the plurality of hanger portions that the hanger portions are alternately arranged or merely an intended use with respect to the arrangement of endoscopes/operations units being located on the holding portion.
In Claim 8, it is not clear whether “a handle portion” is gripped for “carrying” or for pushing the endoscope cleaning cart.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the upper frame unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (JP2011143179).
As to Claim 1, Shimizu (‘179) discloses an endoscope cleaning cart (see Figure1 ) that carries an endoscope (20) including an insertion unit (24) to be inserted into a body cavity and an operation unit (22) for operating the insertion unit (24), the endoscope cleaning cart (see Figure 1) comprising:
a placement portion (40) on which a storage bag storing a cleaning liquid is capable of being placed (see Figure 1) ; and
a holding portion (14) that holds the operation unit (22) above the placement portion (40) (see Figure 1),
wherein the operation unit (22) is held by the holding portion (14), and the insertion unit (24) is immersed in a cleaning liquid (41) capable of being in a storage bag (see Figures 4 and 8).
As to Claim 2, Shimizu (‘179) discloses that the holding portion (14) includes one or a hanger portion (i.e. holder/hanger upper portion of 14 as pointed to by numeral 14 - see Figure 1).
As to Claim 5, Shimizu (‘179) discloses that a cushion member (50) is provided at the bottom in the placement portion (40) (see Figure 2) capable of being located below a storage bag in the placement portion.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voelker (DE102014017397).
As to Claim 1, Voelker (‘397) discloses an endoscope cleaning cart (see Figures 2-3 and 5(a)-(c)) that is capable of carrying an endoscope including an insertion unit to be inserted into a body cavity and an operation unit for operating the insertion unit, the endoscope cleaning cart (see Figure 5(a)) comprising:
a placement portion (45) on which a storage bag (41/82) storing a cleaning liquid is placed (see Figures 1 and 3) ; and
a holding portion (63) that holds an object such as the operation unit above the placement portion (45) (see Figures 2 and 5(A)),
wherein the operation unit is capable of being held by the holding portion (63), and the insertion unit is capable of being immersed in a fluid such as a cleaning liquid in the storage bag (41/82).
As to Claim 2, Voelker (‘397) discloses that the holding portion (63) includes one or a plurality of hanger portions (i.e. at the top end of 63 where 4 hooks/hanger portions are located) (see Figures 2 and 5(a)).
As to Claim 3, Voelker (‘397) discloses that the plurality of hanger portions (i.e. at the top end of 63 where 4 hooks/hanger portions are located) (see Figures 2 and 5(a)) are configured such that operation units adjacent to each other are alternately arranged in a state where a plurality of operations are hooked (see Figures 2 and 5(a)).
As to Claim 8, Voelker (‘397) discloses that the endoscope cleaning cart (see Figures 2-3 and 5(a)-(c)) further comprises a handle portion (61) gripped at a time of carrying and provided on a rear side in a traveling direction (see Figure 2 and 5(A)), wherein the handle portion (61) and the holding portion (63) are provided on the same side (see Figures 2 and 5(a)).
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDonald (3578774).
As to Claim 1, McDonald (‘774) discloses an endoscope cleaning cart (see Figure1 ) that is capable of carrying an endoscope including an insertion unit to be inserted into a body cavity and an operation unit for operating the insertion unit, the endoscope cleaning cart (see Figure 1) comprising:
a placement portion (10) on which a storage bag storing a cleaning liquid is capable of being placed (see Figure 1) ; and
a holding portion (21) that holds an operation unit above the placement portion (10) (see Figure 1),
wherein the operation unit is capable of being held by the holding portion (21), and the insertion unit is capable of being immersed in a cleaning liquid (i.e. within 35) capable of being in a storage bag (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 2, McDonald (‘774) discloses that the holding portion (21) includes one or a hanger portion (i.e. holder/hanger upper portion as pointed to by numeral 21 - see Figure 1).
As to Claim 6, McDonald (‘774) discloses that the endoscope cleaning cart is further comprised of a leakage preventing box (35) that is capable of being provided between a storage bag and the placement portion (10) and capable of storing a lower portion of a storage bag (see Figure 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (JP2011143179) or Voelker (DE102014017397).
Shimizu (‘179) or Voelker (‘397) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
While neither Shimizu (‘179) nor Voelker (‘397) appears to specifically teach that the holding portion (14 and 63, respectively) is formed of a material having translucency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide any suitable material such as a translucent material to form the holding portion in the endoscope cleaning cart of Shimizu or Voelker as an alternate material in order to uphold endoscopes for treatment. Only the expected results would be attained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 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. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: CN1610517 (a washer and sterilizer for endoscopes), JPH10258018 (an endoscope cleaning device/washer), 20150068939/20150069728 (an endoscope holder and cleaner), CN102941196 (an endoscope cleaning machine with a holding portion immersed in a placement portion), ES2246471 (an endoscope reprocessor), CN1578679 (a sterilization device and container).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758