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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 12-27 are pending, claims 10 and 11 having been cancelled and claims 2-9 and 12-27 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed July 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,526,622 to Takamura et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,795,404 to Murphy et al. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0317648 to Miyako and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0296046 to King et al.
As to claim 1, Takamura discloses a method for pre-cleaning an endoscope, the method comprising: fluidly connecting channels for transporting fluids within an endoscope to each other at a distal end of the endoscope, the channels extending from a respective connection port to the distal end of the endoscope (see Takamura Fig. 1 disclosing various channels such as air channel 5 and supply channel 6 and suction channel 15 that are fluidly connected within an endoscope at a distal end of the endoscope by cap 50); connecting a suction pump to at least one of the connection ports or to the distal end of the endoscope (see Takamura Fig. 1 disclosing suction pump 13b that is connected to suction port 13); connecting at least one vessel that holds liquid to the at least one of the connection ports (see Takamura Fig. 1 disclosing liquid tank 48 being connected to the connecting portion 42 and 40); and flushing at least one of the channels with liquid by activating the suction pump so that liquid is drawn from the at least one vessel (see Takamura col. 4, line 37 – col. 5, line 25).
Takamura does not explicitly disclose arranging a hydrophobic filter at each of the at least one vessel, wherein the hydrophobic filter is configured to allow gas to flow from an environment that surrounds the vessel via the hydrophobic filter into a vessel holding chamber of a corresponding vessel and wherein after flushing the at least one of the channels with liquid, the method further comprises flushing at least one of the channels with air by keeping the suction pump activated after the liquid has been drawn out from the at least one vessel to draw air from an environment that surrounds the vessel via the hydrophobic filter into the vessel holding chamber of the corresponding vessel and further through the at least one channel towards the suction pump. Murphy discloses a similar endoscope cleaning method wherein the suction pump is kept activated after the fluid has been depleted thus allowing air to be drawn through the channels (see Murphy col. 5, lines 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include keeping the suction pump activated after the fluid has been depleted in order to promote drying (see Murphy col. 5, lines 3-5).
While Takamura discloses that the vessel can be configured to allow gas to flow from an environment that surrounds the vessel (see Takamura Fig. 1 disclosing an open top container 48 holding the liquid L), the combination of Takamura and Murphy does not explicitly disclose use of a hydrophobic filter on the vessel. Miyako discloses a similar endoscope cleaning method wherein the tanks may further have an air filter (see Miyako paragraph [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include an air filter on the vessel of Takamura/Murphy in order to prevent dust, miscellaneous germs and other foreign matter from mixing into the tank (see Miyako paragraph [0048]). Use of hydrophobic filter is known in the art (see King paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a hydrophobic filter as the air filter of Takamura/Murphy/Miyako in order to prevent liquid from entering the channels during the drying step. Furthermore, having a housing surrounding the vessel or having a vessel holding chamber is known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Murphy Fig. 1, ref.#11 that houses vessel 35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, Takamura is relied upon for disclosing activating the suction pump to flush at least one of the channels so that liquid is drawn from the at least one vessel. Murphy is merely relied upon for disclosing that it is known in the art to keep a pump activated after fluid has been flushed through the channels in order allow air to be drawn through the channels and promote drying of the channels after flushing. Miyako is merely relied upon for disclosing that it is known in the art to use air filters on tanks in endoscope cleaning for the benefit of preventing dust, miscellaneous germs and other foreign matter from mixing into the tank. King is merely relied upon for disclosing that use of hydrophobic filters are known filters to be used in the art in order to also prevent liquid/moisture from entering into endoscope channels. Applicant’s claim is directed to known concepts in endoscope cleaning and the benefits thereof. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed to the references individually are not persuasive.
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 DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
