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 .
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 14 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 14 is indefinite because it is dependent on cancelled claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura et al. (US4526622) in view of Miyako (US2008/0317648).
It appears claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of claims 2-3.
Re claim 1, Takamura et al. teach a method of cleaning an endoscope, the method comprising fluidly connecting channels (5, 6; Fig. 1) for transporting fluids within an endoscope 1, by arranging a container ( 50) onto the distal end (location of element 50) of the endoscope, such that the channels are fluidly connected to each other, the channels extending from a plurality of connection ports (10, 11, 12) to the distal end of the endoscope; connecting a suction pump (13b) to at least one of the connection ports (13, 10; Figs. 1, 4); connecting at least a liquid source 48 to at least one of the connection ports (10, 11, 12, 13), flushing at least one of the channels with a liquid by activating a suction pump so that liquid is drawn from the liquid source through one of the channels via the distal end towards the suction pump (col. 4, lines 51-68, col. 5, lines 1-20). Re claim 1, refer to element 48 of Fig. 1.
Re claim 1, Takamura et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of a plurality of vessels which hold liquid for each connection port. Miyako teaches an endoscopic cleaner comprising a plurality of cleaning vessels (abstract) comprising a disinfectant, allowing the endoscope to be cleaned and disinfected in an automatic fashion (paragraph 2, Fig. 1 for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takamura et al. to include a plurality of vessels containing cleaning solutions, such as disinfectants, as taught by Miyako, for purposes of allowing the endoscope to be cleaned and disinfected in an automatic fashion with greater efficiency. In reference to the liquid source connected to the connection port, refer to the teachings of Takamura et al. (Fig. 1) as previously discussed.
Re clam 4, refer to stops 32, 33, 34 of Fig. 1, to which no liquid source or suction pump is connected. Re claim 6, refer to Fig. 1, wherein the channel comprises an air channel (5), a liquid channel (6) and a suction channel (15). Re claims 7-8, 11-12 refer to Fig. 1, element 50 and col. 4-5 bridging and col. 5, lines 1-30, wherein element 50 reads on the container. Re claim 9, the limitations are inherently met since the liquid flowing through nozzle 7 flows into the space of the space of the cap and then flows into the suction channel 15, therefore the container reads on liquid tight seal from the surrounding environment. Re claim 14, refer to element 13a of Fig. 4 for example.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims under 112, second paragraph is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
The rejection of the claims, as being anticipated by Takamura et al. is withdrawn in view of the newly amended claims.
Applicant argues that the of the combination of Takamura in view of Miyako fails to teach or suggest a plurality of liquid sources to respective connection ports of the endoscope, such that the liquid is drawn from the liquid sources through a plurality of channels to towards the suction pump. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive as the primary reference of Takamura teaches a liquid source connected to a connection port of an endoscope to clean the channels. The secondary reference of Miyako teaches a plurality of liquid sources connected to connection ports (i.e. piping) to clean the endoscope. The examiner maintains the position that it would be obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Takamura to include a plurality of liquid sources having connection ports, which read broadly, as any type of tubing, as taught by Miyako, for purposes of delivering various fluids to perform the same function of cleaning the channels of the endoscope. Applicant's invention directed to the use of a plurality of liquids connected to various ports for cleaning multiple channels of the endoscope is neither novel and/or unobvious as there is a clear cleaning of connecting a liquid source to a connection port and to a channel of an endoscope as well as using a plurality of liquid sources with connection ports (i.e. tubing) for cleaning of an endoscope. It is noted that applicant's claim directed to a connection port is broadly interpreted to include any type of tubing, hose, or conduit, or any member which connects a liquid source to an endoscope.
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 Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights