DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious burden on the Examiner to examine the claims of both groups together, because the subject matter of Groups I and II are sufficiently related.
This is not found persuasive because the groups are directed to inventions of different statutory categories. Furthermore, a distinctness between the two groups can be met if either: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case because the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product such as a method of cleaning a surgical instrument in a medical device processing chamber, the inventions require a different field of search – thus providing a reasonable search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the first spray arm and the second spray arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson et al. (US 20140053873 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/19/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Watson teaches a device reprocessing system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a processing chamber (12, Fig. 1) configured to receive one or more medical devices to be cleaned (medical devices are capable of fitting in the chamber 12, Fig. 1);
a non-contact receiver coupled to the processing chamber (magnetic detector 68, Fig. 3-4), the non-contact receiver configured to detect a presence of a passive emitter (magnet 64, Fig. 1); and
a spray arm assembly (arms 16 and 30, Fig. 1) configured to rotate about a rotational axis relative to the processing chamber ([0006]), the spray arm assembly comprising:
a spray arm (arm 16, Fig. 1) configured to expel a fluid outward from the spray arm toward one or more medical devices within the processing chamber (nozzles 18, Fig. 1) and [0026]); and
the passive emitter (magnet 64, Fig. 1) configured to be detectable by the non-contact receiver (magnet detector 68, Fig. 1), the passive emitter being positioned offset from the rotational axis (magnet 64 is offset from the center rotational axis of Fig. 3) such that rotation of the spray arm assembly relative to the processing chamber (rotation of wash arms 16 and 30, Fig. 1) causes the passive emitter (magnet 64, Fig. 1) to move relative to the non-contact receiver (detector 68, Fig. 1 and [0028]).
The limitations of “a medical device reprocessing system” and “configured to receive one or more medical devices to be cleaned” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Watson and the apparatus of Watson is capable of housing a medical device. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the chamber (12, Fig. 1) defines an interior space, the chamber having a door (14, Fig. 1) that allows the placing of objects inside the chamber. Thus, a medical device is fully capable of being placed within the chamber (i.e., “receive”).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Watson teaches wherein the passive emitter (64, Fig. 3) and the non-contact receiver (68, Fig. 3) are arranged such that, as the spray arm assembly rotates relative to the processing chamber (wash arms 16 and 30 rotating within chamber 12, Fig. 1-3), the passive emitter moves relative to the non-contact receiver such that the passive emitter moves to a detectable position proximate the non-contact receiver once per revolution of the spray arm assembly (“A magnetic detector 68 (e.g., a reed switch or Hall effect sensor) is mounted in the manifold in a position to detect the magnet passing thereby during rotation of the hub member 52”, Fig. 3 and [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Watson teaches a controller in communication with the non-contact receiver (controller 42 that “is connected with the detector to monitor wash arm rotational speed”, [0013] and Fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured to: detect when the passive emitter is positioned at a detectable position proximate the non-contact receiver ([0013]); and each time the passive emitter is positioned at the detectable position proximate the non-contact receiver (when the magnet 64 is detected by detector 68, Fig. 3), increment a count of detected rotations of the spray arm assembly relative to the processing chamber (RPM, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Watson teaches wherein the controller (42, Fig. 1) is configured to:
compare the count of detected rotations of the spray arm assembly relative to the processing chamber to an expected number of detected rotations ([0016]); and if the count of detected rotations is below the expected number of detected rotations, output an alert ([0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Watson teaches wherein the controller (42, Fig. 1) is configured to:
compare the count of detected rotations of the spray arm assembly relative to the processing chamber to an expected number of detected rotations ([0016]); and if the count of detected rotations is below the expected number of detected rotations ([0016]), stop a reprocessing procedure (“the controller is configured such that the operator alert is only delivered after a ware cleaning cycle is completed”, “completed” meaning the reprocessing procedure being stopped, [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the processing chamber is configured to hold one or more endoscopes” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Watson and the apparatus of Watson is capable of holding an endoscope. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the chamber (12, Fig. 1) defines an interior space, the chamber having a door (14, Fig. 1) that allows the placing of objects inside the chamber. Thus, a medical device such as an endoscope is fully capable of being placed within the chamber (i.e., “hold”).
Regarding claim 7, Watson teaches wherein the spray arm assembly is removably attachable to the processing chamber ([0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Watson teaches wherein the passive emitter comprises a magnet (64, Fig. 3), and wherein the non-contact receiver comprises a magnet sensor (68, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Watson teaches wherein the spray arm assembly (arms 16 and 30, Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of spray arms (each halves of spray arms 16 and 30, Fig. 1), each of the plurality of spray arms is configured to spray fluid outward from a respective one of the plurality of spray arms toward the one or more medical devices within the processing chamber (nozzles 18 and 32, Fig. 1-3), when the spray arm assembly is coupled to the processing chamber ([0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Watson teaches a cap (tube 56, Fig. 3) configured to secure the spray arm assembly (arms 16 and 30, Fig. 3) to the processing chamber (chamber wall 76 of chamber 12, Fig. 3), the cap being secured to the processing chamber such that the cap does not rotate when the spray arm assembly rotates relative to the processing chamber (tube 56 does not rotate, only rotatable hub member 52 fixed to arms 16 and 30, Fig. 3), and wherein the cap comprises a nozzle (fluid exit port of tube 56, Fig. 3) configured to emit fluid into the processing chamber (the fluid exit port of tube 56 is connected to the spray arm 30, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Watson teaches wherein: the processing chamber comprises a floor (76, Fig. 3); and the spray arm assembly (arms 16 and 30, Fig. 3) is coupled to the floor of the processing chamber (via tube 56 and manifold 58, Fig. 3) and the rotational axis is perpendicular to the floor of the processing chamber (central rotational axis of wash arms 16 and 30 are perpendicular to floor wall 76, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Watson teaches wherein the spray arm assembly comprises: a first spray arm extending parallel to the floor of the processing chamber (left half of arm 16, Fig. 1); and a second spray arm extending parallel to the floor of the processing chamber and in an opposite direction as the first spray arm (right half of arm 16, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Watson teaches wherein the spray arm (16, Fig. 1) extends along the rotational axis (arm 16 has a height, Fig. 3) and comprises a plurality of spray holes separated along a direction of the rotational axis (nozzles 18, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Watson teaches a stator portion (manifold 58 and tube 56, Fig. 3) configured to engage the spray arm assembly (arms 16 and 30, Fig. 3) and the spray arm assembly is configured to rotate relative to the stator portion (via rotatable hub member 52, Fig. 3 and [0028]); and the non-contact receiver is held by the stator portion (magnet detector 68 is mounted in the manifold 58, [0028]).
Regarding claim 16, Watson teaches wherein the spray arm assembly (arms 16 and 30, Fig. 3) is configured to rotate in response to fluid received from the processing chamber (“a wash arm mounted for rotation within the chamber… delivering a recirculated wash liquid to the wash arm for spraying during a ware cleaning operation”, [0006]) such that a rate of rotation of the spray arm assembly is related (a ware washing cycle initiates the rotation of the spray arm assembly as well as fluid delivery to spray arms, and thus both steps are “related”) to a flow rate of fluid from the processing chamber (recirculated fluid from collection sump 20, Fig. 1) and a flow rate of the fluid expelled from the spray arm (fluid ejected via nozzles 18 and 32, Fig. 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 20140053873 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Qu et al. (CN 104997477 A).
Regarding claim 13, Watson teaches wherein: a first spray arm (left half of arm 16, Fig. 1) and the second spray arm (right half of arm 16, Fig. 1) extend along a spray arm axis (horizontal length-wise axis of arm 16, Fig. 1);
the first spray arm comprises a first plurality of spray holes configured to receive fluid from the processing chamber (nozzles 18 of left half of arm 16, Fig. 1-2), the first plurality of spray holes are separated from one another along the direction of the spray arm axis and are positioned on a first side of the spray arm axis (said nozzles 18 are arranged in spaced intervals and face the same upward direction, Fig. 2);
the second spray arm comprises a second plurality of spray holes configured to receive fluid from the processing chamber (nozzles 18 of right half of arm 16, Fig. 1-2), the second plurality of spray holes are separated from one another along the direction of the spray arm axis and are positioned on a second side of the spray arm axis, opposite the first (said nozzles 18 are arranged in spaced intervals and face the same upward direction, Fig. 2).
However, Watson fails to teach the positioning of the first and second arm spray holes such that fluid spraying from the first plurality of spray holes imparts a first rotational force on the spray arm assembly to cause the spray arm assembly to rotate in a first direction; and
fluid spraying from the second plurality of spray holes imparts second rotational force on the spray arm assembly to cause the spray arm assembly to rotate in the first direction.
Qu teaches a dishwasher (1, Fig. 2) with a rotating spray assembly (Fig. 3-4) having a first spray arm (left half arm of Fig. 4) with its respective spray holes (4, Fig. 4) and a second spray arm (right half arm of Fig. 4) with its respective spray holes (4, Fig. 4), wherein the holes of the second spray arm and first arm are obliquely positioned on opposite sides of their spray arm axis (horizontal axis that the spray holes 4 are all positioned on, Fig. 4) in order to generate a cohesive propulsion-based rotational force in the clockwise direction (p.2, last paragraph of English translation).
Watson and Qu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of washing chambers for objects with rotating spray arm assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray holes/nozzles of the first and second spray arms of Watson by incorporating an oblique arrangement of the first spray holes opposite to the oblique arrangement of the second spray holes as taught by Qu, because doing so would generate a cohesive propulsion-based rotational force of the spray arms (Qu, p.2, last paragraph of English translation) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights