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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 7/10/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-10,12-14,16-17 and 22-27 are pending. Claims 7, 9-10, 12-13 have been amended. Claims 11, 15 and 18-21 have been cancelled. Claims 22-27 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/26 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Knorr et al. (EP1946692B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knorr et al. (EP1946692B1).
Regarding claims 9, 17, Knorr et al. teaches a machine capable of cleaning medical apparatuses (see figure 1, page 3 of the translation), the machine comprising: a chamber 2 capable of receiving a tray 4 and at least one medical apparatus thereon (See figure 1 and page 3 of the translation); a module 10 located at a side of the chamber 2, and configured to couple the cleaning machine to the tray 4 (see figures 1-2, page 3 of the translation), the module 10 comprising: a plurality of cleaning fluid ports 16, 30 configured as nozzles (reads on claim 17) protruding into the chamber 2 and capable of engaging and disengaging through-holes (see holes associated with 8, as shown in figures 3-4) of a coupling block 7 of the tray 4 (see figures 3-4, page 3 of the translation); and at least one connection feature 21, 32 configured to engage the coupling block 7 as the tray 4 is inserted into the chamber 2, wherein the at least one connection feature 21, 32 comprises an indexing pin 21, 32 configured to engage a blind groove 33 of the coupling block 7 so as to abut against a blind end of the blind groove 33 when the through-holes align with the cleaning fluid ports 16, 30 (see figures 3-4, page 3 of the translation) (reads on claim 9).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (EP1946692B1) in view of Noguchi et al. (US20090217956).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, Knorr et al. teaches a tray for a cleaning machine (see figure 1, page 3 of the translation), the tray 4 comprising: a bottom portion capable of receiving at least one medical apparatus (see figures 1-2, page 3 of the translation); a side portion extending upwardly from the bottom portion; and a coupling block 7 attached to the side portion (see figures 1-2, page 3 of the translation), wherein the coupling block 7 comprises a plurality of through-holes (see holes passing through 8, as shown in figures 2-4) capable of fluidly connecting the at least one medical apparatus to cleaning fluid ports of the cleaning machine, and wherein the coupling block 7 is configured to engage (see sliding of 21, 32 in 33) a corresponding connection module 10 on a side of a cleaning chamber 2 of the cleaning machine as the tray 4 is inserted into the cleaning machine (see figures 1-4, page 3 of the translation); the coupling block 7 comprises a blind groove 33 adapted to engage an indexing pin 21, 32 of the cleaning machine (reads on claim 2) (see figures 3-4, page 3 of the translation); the blind groove 33 has a blind end (see rear wall of 33, as shown in figures 3-4) forming a blind hole that is arranged to enable the indexing pin 21, 32 to penetrate further into the coupling block 7 (see figures 3-4) (reads on claim 4). Knorr et al. does not teach that the bottom and side portions are a bottom panel and a sidewall, respectively. Noguchi et al. teaches a cleaning machine (see abstract) and that the tray 10 may comprise a bottom panel (see bottom panel of 12 and 13, as shown in figure 2) and sidewall (see sidewall extending upward from bottom panel of 12, as shown in figure 2), and that the shape and configuration of the tray 10 may be chosen so as to optimize the accommodation of the particular item to be cleaned (see paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). Since both Knorr et al. and Noguchi et al. teach cleaning machines with item holding trays it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the bottom and side portions of the tray in the system by Knorr et al. may comprise a bottom panel and sidewall so as to optimize the accommodation of the particular item to be cleaned, as shown to be known and conventional by Noguchi et al. Furthermore, it has been determined that changes in shape constitute an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Knorr et al. and Noguchi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 2. Knorr et al. also teaches in figures 1-4 and page 3 of the translation that the blind groove 33 is parallel to the bottom portion of the tray 4 and is located on an outward side surface of the coupling block 7. Hence, it is readily apparent that, in the modified system, the blind groove would be parallel to the bottom panel.
Regarding claim 7, Knorr et al. and Noguchi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Knorr et al. also teaches in figures 1-4 and page 3 of the translation that the through-holes are parallel to the bottom portion of the tray 4 and are perpendicular to the sidewall. Hence, it is readily apparent that, in the modified system, the through holes would be parallel to the bottom panel.
Regarding claim 8, Knorr et al. and Noguchi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Knorr et al. also teaches in figures 1-4 and page 3 of the translation that the at least one medical apparatus may comprise an endoscope having a plurality of lumens (see channels), and the plurality of through-holes on the coupling block 7 have an inlet side capable of fluidly coupling to corresponding ones of the cleaning fluid ports and an outlet side capable of coupling to the plurality of lumens.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (EP1946692B1) in view of Noguchi et al. (US20090217956) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of He (CN114855407A).
Regarding claim 6, Knorr et al. and Noguchi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Knorr et al. does not teach that the coupling block further comprises at least one permanent magnet configured to be detectable by a sensor of the cleaning machine. He teaches a washing machine (see abstract) and that a sensor in the washing machine may be used to detect a permanent magnet (see magnetic element/piece arranged in the tank 200) so as to ensure proper installation and the safety of the operation of the washing machine (see pages 6-7 of the translation). Since both Knorr et al. and He teach washing machines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the coupling block in Knorr et al. may comprise at least one permanent magnet configured to be detectable by a sensor of the cleaning machine so as to ensure proper installation and safe operation of the cleaning machine, as shown to be known and conventional by He.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (EP1946692B1) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of He (CN114855407A).
Regarding claim 16, Knorr et al. and Noguchi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Knorr et al. does not teach that a sensor for detecting the location of a permanent magnet arranged in the coupling block of the tray. He teaches a washing machine (see abstract) and that a sensor in the washing machine may be used to detect a permanent magnet (see magnetic element/piece arranged in the tank 200) so as to ensure proper installation and the safety of the operation of the washing machine (see pages 6-7 of the translation). Since both Knorr et al. and He teach washing machines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the coupling block in Knorr et al. may comprise at least one permanent magnet configured to be detectable by a sensor of the cleaning machine so as to ensure proper installation and safe operation of the cleaning machine, as shown to be known and conventional by He.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 12-14 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.
Claims 22-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 5, 10, 12-14 and 22, including the following limitations of independent claim 22: “…the at least one connection feature comprises a C-shaped jaw configured to engage one of a top and a bottom surface of the coupling block”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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 BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights