DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 statements (IDS’s) submitted on 06/04/2024 and 07/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Comment: It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of the scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 12-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukuda (US 4760838);
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita (US 4552130);
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aizenfeld (US 8152716);
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota (US 2003/0032862);
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizenfeld and further in view of Smith (US 8535219) and Ota.
Fukuda discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 5 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
684
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A manifold (52/56 figure 5) for use with an endoscope system (title), the manifold comprising: a fluid inlet (at either of 1002a,b); a first fluid outlet (at 1004/1006/1008 or 64); a second fluid outlet (id); a conduit (at 66/68/74/76) in fluid communication with the fluid inlet and the first fluid outlet; a pressurized chamber (62a,b); a compressible chamber (58 of the liquid) in fluid communication with the conduit (as shown) and in communication with the pressurized chamber (as shown), and wherein a volume of the compressible chamber (i.e. as the liquid volume in 58 decreases as it exits via 68 it…) is configured to be reduced to cause fluid to pass through the second fluid outlet (that of 68) in response to a pressurized gas (via 74) received at the pressurized chamber;
Comment: it is noted that the terms “fluid inlet” and “fluid outlet” are terms of viewpoint perspective with regard to the source of the fluid and the direction of fluid flow, where taken in context of a manifold, the various orifices of a manifold may be fluid inlets or outlets depending upon the direction taken therein, and it is noted that the term “fluid” applies to both a gas and liquid, and that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon (i.e. the fluid) by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115
Fukuda discloses in claim 2: The manifold of claim 1, further comprising: a one-way valve (84) between the conduit and the compressible chamber (at least axially), Fukuda does not disclose, although Kinoshita teaches: wherein the one-way valve (52/56 figure 6) is configured to allow fluid to pass from the conduit (46/54) into the compressible chamber (61 receives compressed fluid) and prevent fluid from passing to the conduit from the compressible chamber (for the purpose of for example, maintaining a positive pressure above the one way valve);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Fukuda as taught in Kinoshita, an arrangement where a one-way valve can be configured to allow fluid to pass from the conduit into the compressible chamber of Fukuda as taught in Kinoshita and prevent fluid from passing to the conduit from the compressible chamber, for the purpose of for example, maintaining a positive pressure above the one way valve.
Fukuda discloses in claim 3: The manifold of claim 1, wherein the pressurized chamber is configured to receive pressurized air (via 74/76) from an air pump (70/72 figure 1.)
Fukuda discloses in claim 4: The manifold of claim 1, Fukuda does not disclose, although Aizenfeld teaches: the pressurized chamber is configured to receive pressurized carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2 via 38 where it can be fed to the water tank via switch 100 via 98’, for the purpose of applying pressurized fluid to the tank);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Fukuda as taught in Aizenfeld, the pressurized chamber arranged to receive pressurized carbon dioxide as taught in Aizenfeld where the gas can be fed to the chamber via a switch as taught in Aizenfeld, all for the purpose of applying pressurized fluid to the tank
Fukuda discloses in claim 5: The manifold of claim 1, further comprising: a gas port (1002a, 1008 are gas ports) configured to receive the pressurized gas (via conduits 74/76).
Fukuda discloses in claim 6: The manifold of claim 1, but does not disclose, although Ota teaches: an adjustable barrier (bladder 31 figure 4) between the compressible chamber (inside of 31) and the pressurized chamber (30A, provided for the purpose of (see ph 0037) defining a separate fluid barrier between the water and air so as to prevent mixing of fluids as well as for example, to maintain a certain pressure in the bladder via the elasticity of the bladder);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Fukuda as taught in Ota, with an adjustable barrier bladder as taught in Ota arranged between the compressible chamber and the pressurized chamber, all provided for the purpose of for example, defining a separate fluid barrier between the water and air so as to prevent mixing of fluids as well as maintain a certain pressure in the bladder via the elasticity of the bladder.
Fukuda discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The manifold of claim 6, wherein the adjustable barrier adjusts to decrease the volume of the compressible chamber (as discussed above via the elasticity of the bladder) and increase a volume of the pressurized chamber in response to the pressurized chamber receiving the pressurized gas.
Fukuda discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The manifold of claim 6, wherein the adjustable barrier comprises a flexible membrane (bladder as discussed above) between the compressible chamber and the pressurized chamber.
Fukuda discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The manifold of claim 10, wherein the flexible membrane is biased to a first position (depressurized figure 4b) associated with a first volume of the compressible chamber and the flexible membrane is configured to adjust to a second position (pressurized figure 4a) associated with a second volume of the compressible chamber in response to a pressure in the pressurized chamber acting on the flexible membrane to overcome the bias.
Fukuda discloses in claim 12: The manifold of claim 1, further comprising: a gas port (at 1002a/1008) in communication with the pressurized chamber and configured to receive the pressurized gas (via pumps), and wherein the gas port and the second fluid outlet (at 1006) are configured to couple with a coaxial dual lumen (18/20 figure 1) tubing set.
Fukuda discloses in claim 13: The manifold of claim 1, further comprising: a fluid access port (1002b is a port for the container 54 to be decoupled and refilled with fluid) in fluid communication with the conduit (as is interposed…) between the fluid inlet and the first fluid outlet.
Fukuda discloses in claim 14: A fluid supply system (figure 1 and 4) for an endoscope system (abstract), the fluid supply system comprising: a container (54) configured to contain fluid; a manifold (56) comprising: a pressurized gas pathway (1002a/1008); a first fluid pathway (via 1004) configured to receive fluid (liquid) from the container; a second fluid pathway (via 1006) configured to receive fluid (gas) from the container; a first port (at 1012) in fluid communication with the pressurized gas pathway; a second port (at 1010) in fluid communication with the first fluid pathway; and a third port (at 64) in fluid communication with the second fluid pathway; a first tubing set (74/76 and 66/68) having a first end configured to couple (via 56) to the second port and to be in communication with a pump (70/72); and a second tubing set (30a/32a figure 1) having a first end (at end 50) configured to couple to the third port (as shown via 56/66/68 connection) and to be in fluid communication (via connection 20) with an endoscope of the endoscope system.
Fukuda discloses in claim 15: The fluid supply system of claim 14, wherein the first tubing set is releasably (via connection 20) coupled to the second tubing set.
Fukuda discloses in claim 16: The fluid supply system of claim 14, wherein the first tubing set includes a pump engaging portion (74/76 engage pumps 70/72) at a location between the first end a second end (the ends connecting to the pumps) of the first tubing set.
Fukuda discloses in claim 19: The fluid supply system of claim 14, wherein the manifold further comprises: a pressurized chamber (62a) configured to expand in response to receiving pressurized fluid via the pressurized gas pathway and cause fluid to be output from the third port (via 68, where as the liquid escapes, the gas volume increases, while the liquid volume decreases.)
Aizenfeld discloses in claim 20: A manifold (28/32 figure 2a) for use with an endoscope system (abstract), the manifold comprising: an irrigation conduit (232) configured to be in fluid communication with a source of fluid (from 32/38); a lens wash chamber (inner wash of 32) configured to receive liquid via an inlet (the inlet/cap of the chamber) and output the liquid received from an outlet (via 234); a pressurized chamber (gas above liquid or that of 38) configured to receive pressurized gas (via 230); and an adjustable (gas/liquid surface) barrier between the pressurized chamber and the lens wash chamber, and wherein the adjustable barrier is configured to adjust (via pressure) to push liquid through the outlet in response to the pressurized chamber receiving the pressurized gas (via the gas line 230.) Aizenfeld does not disclose: an adjustable bladder/membrane barrier between the pressurized gas chamber and liquid lens wash chamber; the lens wash chamber to receive liquid irrigation via liquid irrigation conduit; but Smith teaches: the lens wash chamber (150) to receive liquid irrigation via liquid irrigation conduit (H20 supply Fig 3c, provided for the purpose of replenishing the water supply); and Ota teaches: an adjustable barrier (bladder 31 figure 4) between the liquid lens wash chamber (inside of 31) and the pressurized gas chamber (30A, provided for the purpose of (see ph 0037) defining a separate fluid barrier between the water and air so as to prevent mixing of fluids as well as for example, to maintain a certain pressure in the bladder via the elasticity of the bladder);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Aizenfeld as taught in Ota, with an adjustable barrier bladder as taught in Ota arranged between the compressible liquid lens wash chamber and the pressurized gas chamber of Aizenfeld, all provided for the purpose of for example, defining a separate fluid barrier between the water and air so as to prevent mixing of fluids as well as maintain a certain pressure in the bladder via the elasticity of the bladder; and
it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Aizenfeld as taught in Smith with the lens wash chamber having access to receive liquid irrigation via liquid irrigation conduit as taught in Smith, all provided for the purpose of for example, replenishing the water lens wash supply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 is 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; dependent claims 9 and 18 merely depends from what would be an allowable parent claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claim 8 the following “the adjustable barrier comprises a plunger configured to form a seal with a wall defining the compressible chamber and the pressurized chamber” in combination with the other limitations set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claim 17 the following “a first bag spike configured to engage the container and in fluid communication with the pressurized gas pathway to provide pressurized gas to the container; and a second bag spike configured to engage the container and in fluid communication with the first fluid pathway and the second fluid pathway” in combination with the other limitations set forth above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753