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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A2 in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-9 and 12-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 27, 2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 will be examined on the merits.
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 1, 10 and 11 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.
Claim 1 recites “flushing at least one of the channels with liquid by activating the suction pump so that liquid is drawn…” in lines 9-11. It is unclear whether the “liquid” that is used to flush the channels is the liquid held by the vessel in lines 7-8, or a different, unrecited liquid. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “flushing at least one of the channels with the liquid by activating the suction pump so that the liquid is drawn…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,526,622 to Takamura 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).
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) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,526,622 to Takamura et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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.
Takamura is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 10 and 11, 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights