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 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 7 does not render the claimed invention indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the invention: Examiner maintains the position as stated in the office action of 11/21/25 as follows: The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what relative positioning is being claimed; applicant does not provide any explanation as to how the specification would provide the standard for ascertaining the requisite degree nor does applicant provide any evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the particular range of positions that would constitute “substantially perpendicular”.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach a plurality of cleaning fluid ports protruding into the chamber and adapted to engage and disengage through-holes of a coupling block of the tray, because 14 and 15 of Suzuki et al. constitute holes not a block and do not engage the nozzles: Examiner maintains the position as stated in the office action of 11/21/25 and elaborates as follows: Suzuki et al. teaches a tray 10 comprising: a coupling block 14, 15 (see paragraphs [0073]-[0074], figure 2, reference numbers 14 and 15 are sections of the tray 10 in which holes 14a and 15a are formed), wherein the coupling block 14, 15 comprises a plurality of through-holes configured to fluidly connect the at least one medical apparatus 20 to cleaning fluid ports 51, 52, 61 of the cleaning machine 2 (see figures 1-2, 5-8, paragraphs [0067]-[0070], [0073]-[0074], cleaning fluid ports 51, 52, 61 are nozzles that protrude into the chamber 5 and are adapted to engage and disengage the through-holes of the coupling block 14, 15 of the tray 10 as the nozzles are inserted into and withdrawn from – reads on engaged and disengaged with - the through-holes of the coupling block), and wherein the coupling block 14, 15 is configured to engage a corresponding connection module (see corner portion comprising 50, 60, as shown in figure 1) on a side of a cleaning chamber 5 of the cleaning machine 2 as the tray 10 is inserted into the cleaning machine 2 (see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0049]-[0058]); and at least one connection feature 59/55/56, comprising an indexing pin 59, configured to engage the coupling block 14, 15 as the tray 10 is inserted into the chamber 5 (see figures 2-3, 5-8, paragraphs [0069], [0090]-[0091], [0115]-[0118]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 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.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what relative positioning is being claimed.
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 9-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US20070169799).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17, Suzuki et al. teaches a tray 10 for a cleaning machine 2 (see abstract, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]), the tray 10 comprising: a bottom panel (see bottom panel of portion 12, as shown in figure 2) configured to receive at least one medical apparatus 20 (see figure 2, paragraph [0071]); a sidewall extending upwardly from the bottom panel; and a coupling block 14, 15 attached to the sidewall, wherein the coupling block 14, 15 comprises a plurality of through-holes (see through-holes associated with 14, 15, as shown in figure 2, which are parallel to the bottom panel and perpendicular to the sidewall) configured to fluidly connect the at least one medical apparatus 20 to cleaning fluid ports 51, 52, 61 of the cleaning machine 2 (see figures 1-2, 5-8, paragraphs [0067]-[0070], [0073]-[0074], cleaning fluid ports 51, 52, 61 are nozzles – reads on claim 17 - that protrude into the chamber 5 and are adapted to engage and disengage the through-holes of the coupling block 14, 15 of the tray 10 as the nozzles are inserted into and withdrawn from – reads on engaged and disengaged with - the through-holes of the coupling block), and wherein the coupling block 14, 15 is configured to engage a corresponding connection module (see corner portion comprising 50, 60, as shown in figure 1) on a side of a cleaning chamber 5 of the cleaning machine 2 as the tray 10 is inserted into the cleaning machine 2 (see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0049]-[0058]); and at least one connection feature 59/55/56, comprising an indexing pin 59 (reads on claim 10), configured to engage the coupling block 14, 15 as the tray 10 is inserted into the chamber 5 (see figures 2-3, 5-8, paragraphs [0069], [0090]-[0091], [0115]-[0118]).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US20070169799) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of He (CN114855407A).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki et al. teaches the limitations of claim 9. Suzuki 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 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 Suzuki 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 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 11-15 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Suzuki et al. (US20070169799). Suzuki et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11-15, including the following limitations of independent claim 1: “..a coupling block attached to the sidewall..”. 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
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 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