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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the Cummings reference does not disclose first and second dispensers each in direct fluid communication with the chamber, as required by the amendments to independent claims 2, 15, and 21, respectively. The Examiner agrees, and the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Cummings has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Nelson, Applicant has argued that Nelson discloses alternately exposing the contaminated article to disinfecting vapor and water vapor rather than “infiltrating the medical device in the sterilization chamber with an obstructing substance before the treatment agent,” as recited in amended independent claim 2, “provide an obstructing substance before a treatment agent into the sealable chamber” as recited in amended independent claim 15, and “dispense an obstructing substance before a treatment agent, into a sealable chamber” as recited in amended independent claim 21 (see remarks pp. 7-8).
The Examiner appreciates that Nelson may not expressly teach operating their apparatus in exactly the same manner as in Applicant’s specification; nonetheless, it has been held that, for device claims, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the limitation of providing the obstructing substance before the treatment agent as recited in each of claims 2, 15, and 21, respectively, introduces a structural difference over the prior art. Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the apparatus disclosed by Nelson would be structurally capable of achieving the claimed intended use, as discussed in the prior Office Action; the disclosure of “alternately” providing water vapor and disinfecting vapor (mapped to the obstructing substance and the treatment agent, respectively) is sufficient to read on the limitation of providing the obstructing substance “before” the treatment agent as recited in each noted claim.
The claim amendments have necessitated a modified grounds of rejection, presented below.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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 removal device for removing a portion of the treatment agent from the medical device in claim 7; and
a removal device for removing the treatment agent in claim 18.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for performing the claimed function: a radiofrequency generator, a vacuum pump, a vent valve, a dispenser, a cloth.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites wherein the first and second dispensers are configured to facilitate a capacity reduction of the object to absorb or adsorb the treatment agent. However, the specification as-filed appears to describe that only the obstructing substance (i.e., the substance provided by only the first dispenser, as stated in claim 21, from which claim 22 depends) is effective to reduce the absorptive or adsorptive capacity of the object (e.g., see [0005]-[0006] of the specification). Therefore, it is understood that only the first dispenser, but not the second dispenser, would be configured to facilitate a capacity reduction of the object to absorb or adsorb the treatment agent. Thus, the subject matter of claim 22 constitutes new matter.
Similarly, claim 23 recites wherein the first and second dispensers are configured to facilitate a reduction of a residual treatment agent on the object. However, the specification as-filed appears to describe that only the obstructing substance (i.e., the substance provided by only the first dispenser, as stated in claim 21, from which claim 23 depends) is effective to reduce the residual content (e.g., see [0005]-[0006] of the specification). Therefore, it is understood that only the first dispenser, but not the second dispenser, would be configured to facilitate a reduction of residuals. Thus, the subject matter of claim 23 constitutes new matter.
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 22-23 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.
Regarding each of claims 22 and 23, each of the claims recites subject matter that appears to be inconsistent with what is described in the specification, as discussed in detail in the 112(a) section, above. According to MPEP 2173, issues of indefiniteness arise when the claim terms are inconsistent with the specification, and therefore each of claims 22 and 23 is indefinite. For the purpose of examination on the merits, claim 22 will be interpreted as meaning that the first dispenser and the sealable chamber are configured to facilitate the capacity reduction of the object, and claim 23 will be interpreted as meaning that the first dispenser and the chamber are configured to facilitate the reduction of a residual treatment agent.
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)(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 2, 5, 10-13, 15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nelson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0093739) (already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson et al. discloses an apparatus for sterilization (Abstract, para. 1), comprising:
a sterilization chamber to receive a medical device (para. 43, 54, 93);
first and second dispensers (separate elements for dispensing water vapor and disinfecting vapor, respectively, see para. 43, 46, 49, 54, 56) each in direct fluid communication with the sterilization chamber (para. 43, 46, 54, 56) (Figs. 1 and 2, sheet 1 of 1), the first dispenser configured to expose the medical device to water vapor (reads on an obstructing substance) by delivering water vapor into the chamber (para. 46, 49, 56), wherein the first dispenser is configured to infiltrate the medical device only with the water vapor (obstructing substance) (para. 46, 49, 56) and the second dispenser is configured to infiltrate the medical device only with a disinfecting vapor (reads on a treatment agent) (para. 43, 49, 54).
As to the limitation of the first dispenser being configured to facilitate a capacity reduction of the medical device to absorb or adsorb a treatment agent by infiltrating the medical device in the sterilization chamber with an obstructing substance before the treatment agent, this is a recitation of intended use of the dispenser and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." (MPEP 2114); the prior art anticipates if it teaches all structural limitations of the claim and is fully capable of achieving the claimed function.
In this case, Nelson et al. discloses every structural limitation, as set forth above. As to the claimed function, Applicant’s own specification states that facilitating a capacity reduction of the medical device to absorb or adsorb a treatment agent by infiltrating the medical device in the sterilization chamber with an obstructing substance before the treatment agent is achieved by contacting the medical device with water vapor (obstructing substance) in the sterilization chamber before a treatment agent (para. 5-6, 52, and 55 of the specification as-filed). Nelson et al. further discloses that the apparatus is configured to operate such that the medical device is alternately exposed to water vapor and a disinfecting agent (para. 97), and therefore, the prior art apparatus is fully capable of operating such that the medical device is infiltrated in the sterilization chamber with the water vapor (reads on the claimed obstructing substance) before the disinfecting agent (reads on the claimed treatment agent). As such, Nelson et al. anticipates the noted limitation because Nelson et al. discloses every structural limitation and the apparatus is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use.
Regarding claim 5, Nelson et al. discloses wherein the first or second dispenser further comprises a vaporizer configured to convert at least one of the water (obstructing substance) and disinfectant (treatment agent) into a vapor (para. 49).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson et al. discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a pump and a valve in fluid communication with the sterilization chamber wherein the pump and valve are configured to control a pressure within the sterilization chamber (para. 8, 55, 113).
Regarding claim 11, Nelson et al. discloses wherein the pump and valve are configured to control the pressure within the sterilization chamber to be equal to atmospheric pressure (e.g., control of the pump and valve determine whether the chamber is at atmospheric or a vacuum pressure, see para. 113-114).
Regarding claim 12, Nelson et al. discloses wherein the pressure is less than 750 torr (para. 113).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of wherein a residual content of the treatment agent absorbed or adsorbed by the medical device is less than or equal to 1,500 ppm/cm2 by weight, after the removal of a portion of the treatment agent from the medical device is directed entirely to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, and the use limitation does not appear to be tied to any particular positively recited structural component of the claimed apparatus. Nelson et al. discloses every positively recited structural feature, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above, and Nelson et al. further discloses wherein the sterilization chamber can be vented with air (para. 114); therefore, it is understood that the apparatus disclosed by Nelson et al. is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use, because it is structurally the same as the claimed apparatus and can be vented to remove the treatment agent. Therefore, the prior art fully meets claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Nelson et al. discloses an apparatus for sterilization (Abstract, para. 1), comprising:
a sealable sterilization chamber to receive a medical device (para. 43, 54, 93);
first and second dispensers (separate elements for dispensing water vapor and disinfecting vapor, respectively, see para. 43, 46, 49, 54, 56) directly connected to the sealable chamber (para. 43, 46, 54, 56) (Figs. 1 and 2, sheet 1 of 1), to provide water vapor (reads on an obstructing substance) before a disinfecting vapor (reads on a treatment agent) into the sealable chamber (para. 46, 49, 56, 97), wherein the first dispenser is configured to provide the sealable chamber only with the water vapor (obstructing substance) (para. 46, 49, 56) and the second dispenser is configured to provide the sealable chamber only with a disinfecting vapor (reads on a treatment agent) (para. 43, 49, 54).
As to the limitation of the sealable chamber and the first dispenser being configured to cause a capacity reduction of the medical device to absorb or adsorb the treatment agent, this is a recitation of intended use of the dispenser and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." (MPEP 2114); the prior art anticipates if it teaches all structural limitations of the claim and is fully capable of achieving the claimed function.
In this case, Nelson et al. discloses every structural limitation, as set forth above. As to the claimed function, Applicant’s own specification states that causing a capacity reduction of the medical device to absorb or adsorb the treatment agent is achieved by contacting the medical device with water vapor (obstructing substance) in the sterilization chamber before a treatment agent (para. 5-6, 52, and 55 of the specification as-filed). Nelson et al. discloses that the apparatus is configured to operate such that the medical device is alternately exposed to water vapor and a disinfecting agent in the chamber (para. 97), and therefore, the prior art apparatus is fully capable of operating such that the medical device is infiltrated in the sterilization chamber with the water vapor (reads on the claimed obstructing substance) before the disinfecting agent (reads on the claimed treatment agent). As such, Nelson et al. anticipates the noted limitation because Nelson et al. discloses every structural limitation and the apparatus is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use.
Regarding claim 21, Nelson et al. discloses a sterilizer (Abstract, para. 1), comprising:
first and second dispensers (separate elements for dispensing water vapor and disinfecting vapor, respectively, see para. 43, 46, 49, 54, 56) to dispense water vapor (an obstructing substance) before a disinfecting vapor (a treatment agent) (para. 43, 46, 49, 54, 56, 97), directly into a sealable chamber (para. 43, 46, 54, 56) (Figs. 1 and 2, sheet 1 of 1), wherein the first dispenser is configured to dispense only the water vapor (obstructing substance) (para. 46, 49, 56) and the second dispenser is configured to dispense only the disinfecting vapor (treatment agent) (para. 43, 49, 54); and
wherein the sealable chamber is configured to receive an object (para. 43, 54, 93) and configured to be vented with air (para. 114) (reads on to facilitate a removal of a portion of the treatment agent from the object; venting with air would necessarily remove a portion of a treatment agent).
Regarding claim 22, the limitation of wherein the first dispenser and the sealable chamber are configured to facilitate a capacity reduction of the object to absorb or adsorb the treatment agent in the sealable chamber is a recitation of intended use of the apparatus and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." (MPEP 2114); the prior art anticipates if it teaches all structural limitations of the claim and is fully capable of achieving the claimed function.
In this case, Nelson et al. discloses every structural limitation, as set forth above. As to the claimed function, Applicant’s own specification states that facilitating a capacity reduction of the object to absorb or adsorb a treatment agent in the sealable chamber is achieved by contacting the object with water vapor (obstructing substance) in the chamber before a treatment agent (para. 5-6, 52, and 55 of the specification as-filed). Nelson et al. further discloses that the apparatus is configured to operate such that object is alternately exposed to water vapor, dispensed by the first dispenser, and a disinfecting agent (para. 97), and therefore, the prior art apparatus is fully capable of operating such that the object is contacted in the chamber with the water vapor by the first dispenser (reads on the claimed obstructing substance) before the disinfecting agent (reads on the claimed treatment agent). As such, Nelson et al. anticipates the noted limitation because Nelson et al. discloses every structural limitation and the apparatus is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation of wherein the first dispenser and the sealable chamber are configured to facilitate a reduction of a residual treatment agent on the object to be less than or equal to 1,500 ppm/cm2 by weight, after the removal of the portion of the treatment agent from the object is directed entirely to an intended use of the claimed apparatus. Nelson et al. discloses every positively recited structural feature, as set forth in the rejection of claim 21, above, and Nelson et al. further discloses wherein the sterilization chamber can be vented with air (para. 114); therefore, it is understood that the apparatus disclosed by Nelson et al. is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use, because it is structurally the same as the claimed apparatus and can be vented to remove the treatment agent. Therefore, the prior art fully meets claim 23.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0093739) (already of record).
Regarding claim 6, Nelson et al. discloses the vaporizer configured to convert at least one of the obstructing substance and the treatment agent into a vapor, as set forth above.
Nelson et al. does not expressly teach that the vaporizer is configured to provide the vapor of at least one of the obstructing substance and the treatment agent at a temperature in a range of 0 degrees Celsius to 200 degrees Celsius.
However, Nelson et al. discloses that the temperature within the chamber, into which the obstructing substance and the treatment agent vapors are injected, should be maintained in a range of 20 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees Celsius (para. 48, 58) (falls within the claim range).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). The skilled artisan would recognize that the temperature of the at least one obstructing substance and treatment agent vapors would determine the temperature within the chamber, and Nelson et al. provides general temperature conditions for this parameter as set forth above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the temperature of the vapor provided by the vaporizer.
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0093739) (already of record) in view of Jacobs et al. (US Patent 5,667,753) (already of record).
Regarding claim 7, Nelson et al. discloses venting the chamber at the conclusion of a sterilization process (para. 114).
Nelson et al. is silent as to the apparatus comprising a removal device for removing a portion of the treatment agent from the medical device, wherein the removal device is configured to generate a plasma in the chamber to contact the treatment.
Jacobs et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a chamber (30) configured to receive an article to be sterilized and an inlet for introducing a sterilant vapor into the chamber to sterilize the object (col. 9 line 41-col. 10 line 44) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 8), and further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a radio frequency generator configured to generate a plasma in the chamber (col. 9 line 41-col. 10 line 44) to contact a portion of the sterilant and remove a portion of the sterilant (col. 5 lines 4-26, col. 9 line 41-col. 10 line 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Nelson et al. to comprise a radio frequency generator (reads on the claimed removal device, a limitation invoking 112(f) and interpreted to cover a radio frequency generator, consistent with Applicant’s specification) configured to generate a plasma in the chamber to contact the treatment agent and thereby remove at least a portion of the treatment agent from the medical device, as Jacobs et al. discloses that it was known in the art to use such an element to remove a sterilant vapor from an article in a sterilization chamber, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance removal of the treatment agent in order to render the medical device free from treatment agent and ready for use.
Regarding claim 8, Nelson et al. in view of Jacobs et al. teaches wherein the removal device is a radio frequency generator, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Nelson et al. in view of Jacobs et al. teaches the removal device configured to generate a plasma, as set forth above, and Jacobs et al. discloses wherein the plasma is configured to convert a treatment agent into water and oxygen (col. 7 lines 1-10); therefore, the prior art combination arrives at the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, Nelson et al. discloses venting the sealable chamber at the conclusion of a sterilization process (para. 114).
Nelson et al. is silent as to the apparatus comprising a removal device for removing the treatment agent from the medical device, wherein the removal device is configured to generate a plasma in the sealable chamber to contact the treatment agent.
Jacobs et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a chamber (30) configured to receive an article to be sterilized and an inlet for introducing a sterilant vapor into the chamber to sterilize the object (col. 9 line 41-col. 10 line 44) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 8), and further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a radio frequency generator configured to generate a plasma in the chamber (col. 9 line 41-col. 10 line 44) to contact a portion of the sterilant and remove a portion of the sterilant (col. 5 lines 4-26, col. 9 line 41-col. 10 line 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Nelson et al. to comprise a radio frequency generator (reads on the claimed removal device, a limitation invoking 112(f) and interpreted to cover a radio frequency generator, consistent with Applicant’s specification) configured to generate a plasma in the sealable chamber to contact the treatment agent and thereby remove the treatment agent from the medical device, as Jacobs et al. discloses that it was known in the art to use such an element to remove a sterilant vapor from an article in a sterilization chamber, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance removal of the treatment agent in order to render the medical device free from treatment agent and ready for use.
Regarding claim 19, Nelson et al. in view of Jacobs et al. teaches wherein the removal device is a radio frequency generator, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Nelson et al. in view of Jacobs et al. teaches the removal device configured to generate a plasma, as set forth above, and Jacobs et al. discloses wherein the plasma is configured to convert a treatment agent into water and oxygen (col. 7 lines 1-10); therefore, the prior art combination arrives at the claimed subject matter.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McVey et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0076189) is directed to an apparatus comprising a sterilizer chamber in direct fluid communication with two independently controllable vaporizers, each configured to vaporize a water/hydrogen peroxide solution.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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 Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799