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's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Martin does not teach a suction connector by component 7/14 is not persuasive. The claim is broadly interpreted and only requires connection to a suction. Since Martin teaches channel 3 as a suction channel that connects to channel 7. Channel 7 was relied upon to show the generic connection and 14 was further relied upon since it is a connector. Since connector 14 is connected to channel 7 which is connected to channel 3, it reads on being indirectly connected to the suction channel 3, and thus also reads on suction connector.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., examples from the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument that Martin cannot determine appropriate connection by a sensor is not pervasive. Martin relies upon a sensor (para 0034) to measure pressure values and compares them with a threshold which then determines if there is a proper connection (para 0034). Pressure is created by the fluid. Thus, it reads on determining connection based on detection of fluid since pressure is a parameter of fluid.
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 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (EP 2724659 A1; See English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a method of detecting connectivity of a biopsy channel of an endoscope during an endoscope reprocessing procedure (para 0009; fig 1), the method comprising: connecting a fluid supply line (21) of an endoscope reprocessing machine (para 0034) to a biopsy channel (3) (para 0034) of an endoscope (1) (para 0017); connecting a fluid detection sensor (52.4) (fig 2; para 0034) of the endoscope reprocessing machine to a suction connector (7/14) of the endoscope (para 0017-0018); introducing a fluid into the fluid supply line connected to the biopsy channel of the endoscope (para 0034); and determining if the fluid supply line is adequately connected to the biopsy channel of the endoscope based on detection of the fluid by the fluid detection sensor (para 0034).
Regarding claim 2, Martin teaches wherein determining if the fluid supply line is adequately connected to the biopsy channel of the endoscope based on detection of the fluid by the fluid detection sensor comprises either (a) detecting, by the fluid detection sensor, the fluid introduced into the fluid supply line connected to the biopsy channel via discharge from the suction connector of the endoscope (claim 1, para 0013 and para 0029) or (b) failing to detect, by the fluid detection sensor, the fluid introduced into the fluid supply line connected to the biopsy channel via discharge from the suction connector of the endoscope (claim 1, para 0013 and para 0029).
Regarding claim 3, Martin teaches in response to detecting the fluid by the fluid detection sensor, the endoscope reprocessing machine proceeding to perform a cleaning procedure on the endoscope (claim 1, para 0011, and para 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Martin teaches in response to determining that the fluid supply line is not adequately connected to the biopsy channel, the endoscope reprocessing machine one or both of issuing a user alert and prohibiting proceeding with a cleaning procedure on the endoscope (claims 1 and 6 and para 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Martin teaches wherein: the endoscope comprises an insertion tube (hoses 20-26) extending from a proximal end to a distal end configured to be inserted into a body of a patient (para 0017), a control section (9a), a connector section (10), and an umbilical cord (5-7) extending between the control section and the connector section; the biopsy channel (3) extends from a biopsy port at the control section through a biopsy channel outlet (11) at a distal end of the insertion tube; and the suction connector (14) is located at the connector section (10) (fig 1; para 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 6, Martin teaches wherein connecting the fluid supply line of the endoscope reprocessing machine to the biopsy channel of the endoscope comprises connecting the fluid supply line to the biopsy port (para 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Martin teaches wherein connecting the fluid detection sensor to the suction connector of the endoscope comprises connecting a fluid receiving line of the endoscope reprocessing machine to the suction connector of the endoscope (para 0034), the fluid receiving line being in fluid communication with the fluid detection sensor (para 0034).
Regarding claim 8, Martin teaches wherein the fluid is water (para 0014).
Regarding claim 9, Martin teaches wherein the fluid is air (para 0015).
Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches wherein the fluid detection sensor is a pressure sensor (para 0034).
Regarding claim 12, Martin teaches the endoscope reprocessing machine comprises a processing chamber configured to receive the endoscope and deliver a cleaning chemistry to one or both of an internal lumen and an external surface of the endoscope (para 0017 and 0024); connecting the fluid supply line of the endoscope reprocessing machine to the biopsy channel of the endoscope comprises connecting the fluid supply line with the endoscope located in the processing chamber (para 0034); and connecting the fluid detection sensor of the endoscope reprocessing machine to the suction connector of the endoscope comprise connecting the fluid detection sensor with the endoscope located in the processing chamber (para 0034).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (EP 2724659 A1; See English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 10, Martin fails to teach wherein the fluid is pressurized to at least 2 bar and delivered at a rate of at least 5 L/min. However, the fluid pressure and delivery rate are result effective variables. The fluid pressure and delivery rate effect the cleaning efficiency of the endoscope. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the appropriate fluid pressure and delivery rate for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the endoscope. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fluid pressure and delivery rate such that the fluid is pressurized to at least 2 bar and delivered at a rate of at least 5 L/min in order to effectively clean the endoscope. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights