DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 9-12, 18, and 19 are 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.
Line 13 of claim 9 recites “the volume of detergent solution”. However, it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a volume of detergent solution” recited in line 7 of claim 9 or it refers to the “a volume of detergent solution recited in line 12 of claim 9.
Line 13 of claim 9 recites “the bag”. However, it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a bag” of line 7 of claim 9 or if it refers to the “a bag” recited in line 12 of claim 9.
Claim 18 recites “the bag” at the end of claim 18. However, it is not clear if this phrase references the bag of the detergent delivery device or the bag of the cleaning apparatus.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the main body portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0192479 by Harris in view of U.S. 2017/0332891 by Yang in view of U.S. 2017/0296046 by King.
With regard to claim 1, Harris teaches an endoscope kit comprising an endoscope 100 and a delivery assembly for supplying water 285 to the endoscope. The delivery assembly comprises a water bottle (containing water 285 in Figure 2) connected to a water bottle connector 290 of the endoscope, a first fluid conduit 240c extending with one end into the container and extending with the other end to an air port of the water bottle connector 290, and a second fluid conduit 245c extending with one end into the container and extending with the other end to a water port of the water bottle connector 290 (Abstract; Par. 0050-0053).
Harris does not teach that the water bottle containing the water 285 (in Figure 2) is a bag. However, in the art of supplying liquid to an endoscope, it is well known that a bag can successfully be used as a container for supplying liquid to an endoscope. 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 kit of Harris such that the water bottle containing the water 285 is in the form of a bag. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of supplying liquid to an endoscope, it is well known that a bag can successfully be used as a container for supplying liquid to an endoscope. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the bag is part of a detergent deliver assembly is considered to specify intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the kit and is not given patentable weight. In the modified kit of Harris, the bag for holding the water is structurally capable of containing a mixture of water and detergent such that detergent can be delivered by the bag.
Harris does not teach that their endoscope kit comprises a sealing plug for engagement with an air-water cylinder of the endoscope.
Yang teaches that, when attempting to clean a used endoscope by flushing cleaning liquid through the endoscope, a unitary sealing body 242 comprising plugs 244 and 246 can be used to simultaneously seal suction valve hole 206 and air/water valve hole 204, wherein an air inlet of the air/water valve hole 204 is sealed, and wherein cleaning liquid flow between a water inlet of the air/water valve hole 204 and an air outlet of air/water valve hole 204 and a water outlet of air/water valve hole 204 is permitted simultaneously, and wherein this sealing body 242 allows cleaning liquid to enter the valve holes (such that cleaning can be advantageously performed) while being sealed within the endoscope (such that the cleaning liquid can’t undesirable leak out of open valve holes; Abstract; Par. 0029-0031).
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 endoscope kit of Harris such that the kit comprises a unitary sealing body of the type taught by Yang, wherein the unitary sealing body is sized to seal (when cleaning the endoscope) the valve wells of gas/water valve 140 and suction valve 145. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yang, who teaches that such a sealing body advantageously aids cleaning of an endoscope because cleaning liquid can flow through the valve holes/wells without leaking out through the valve holes/wells. This combination of Harris in view of Yang does not teach that the valve well of the gas/water valve 140 is cylindrical. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, 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 combination of Harris in view of Yang such that the valve well of the gas/water valve 140 is cylindrical because the valve well could successfully perform its role of housing a valve while having such a shape.
The combination of Harris in view of Yang does not teach that the endoscope kit also comprises a cleaning apparatus comprising a bag holding a volume of liquid, wherein the bag has a neck portion for insertion of a distal top of the endoscope into the bag.
King teaches that when cleaning an endoscope with cleaning liquid, a bag 10 with a neck large enough to contain a distal tip of the endoscope can be used to contain endoscope components such that leaking liquid can be advantageously contained in the bag (Par. 0038).
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 kit of Harris in view of Yang such that the endoscope kit comprises a cleaning bag holding a volume of leaked liquid as an endoscope is cleaned by being at least partially contained within the bag during cleaning of the endoscope, wherein the neck of the bag is large enough to receive the endoscope. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by King, who teaches that such a bag can advantageously be used to contain leaked liquid during endoscope cleaning.
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King, the sealing plug 244 (in Figure 3 of Yang) of the sealing body 242 (in Figure 3 of Yang) has not moving parts.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King, the unitary sealing body comprises a plug 246 (reads on cap) for sealing the valve well (reads on applicant’s suction port) of the suction valve 145 (in Figure 2 of Harris).
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King, the plugs 244 and 246 are parts of a unitary sealing body 242 (in Figure 3 of Yang). The combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King does not teach that the unitary sealing body 242 is made of resilient polymeric material. However, in the art of cleaning, it is well known that a piece of cleaning liquid can successfully be made of resilient polymeric material. 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 kit of Harris in view of Yang in view of King such that the unitary sealing body is made of a resilient polymeric material, as it is well-known in the art of cleaning that a piece of cleaning liquid can successfully be made of resilient polymeric material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 5. With regard to claim 5, the most relevant prior is the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King fails to teach that the sealing plug 244 (in Figure 3 of Yang) comprises the combination of the stem, head portion, annular seals, and transverse passage as recited in applicant’s claim 5. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King in order to arrive at the kit recited in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 6. With regard to claim 6, the most relevant prior is the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King fails to teach that the detergent delivery system comprises a rupturable or breakable reservoir within an internal volume of the bag, wherein the reservoir holds a volume of a detergent concentrate, and wherein the internal volume of the bag holds a volume of water. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King in order to arrive at the kit recited in claim 6. Claim 7 depends from claim 6.
Claim 8 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 8. With regard to claim 8, the most relevant prior is the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King fails to teach that the cleaning apparatus comprises applicant’s recited reservoir holding a volume of detergent concentrate, wherein the reservoir is engaged with the neck portion of the bag such that, when the neck portion is opened to access the internal volume of the main body portion of the bag, the detergent concentrate is concurrently released from the reservoir to mix with water, as recited in claim 8. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King in order to arrive at the kit recited in claim 8.
Claims 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 9. With regard to claim 9, the most relevant prior is the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King does not teach that an endoscope with a sealing plug engaged with the air/water cylinder is also connected to the recited detergent delivery assembly comprising a bag holding a volume of detergent solution and the recited first and second fluid conduits, and wherein a distal tip of the endoscope is immersed in a volume of detergent solution held in a bag of the cleaning apparatus. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Harris in view of Yang in view of King to arrive at the system recited by claim 9. Claims 10-12 each depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 9.
Claims 14, 16, 17, and 20-22 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 14. With regard to claim 14, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King does not disclose a method of keeping a light source connector of the endoscope connected to an air pump with the air pump initially switched off, engaging the sealing plug with the air/water cylinder of the endoscope so that a seal is formed at an air inlet of the air-water cylinder, while permitting fluid flow from a water inlet of the air/water cylinder to both an air outlet and a water outlet of the air/water cylinder simultaneously, connecting the detergent delivery assembly to a water bottle connector of the endoscope, inserting a distal tip of the endoscope into the bag of the cleaning apparatus so that the distal tip is submerged in the volume of liquid, and switching on the air pump so that liquid from the detergent delivery assembly is forced through an air channel and a water channel of the endoscope. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Harris in view of Yang in view of King to arrive at the method recited by claim 14. Claims 16, 17, and 20-22 depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 14.
Claim 18 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. Claim 18 depends from claim 14, which (as discussed above) contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 19 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. Claim 19 depends from claim 14, which (as discussed above) contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (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 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights