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 of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 24, 2026.
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the suction device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation).
As to claim 1, Carlson discloses a method for pre-cleaning an endoscope, the method comprising: drawing liquid into at least one channel of a plurality of channels of an endoscope for transporting fluids (see Carlson paragraphs [0027]-[0030]), and determining an electrical parameter of fluid or fluids in at least one of the plurality of channels into which liquid has been drawn (see Carlson paragraph [0038]).
As to claim 2, Carlson discloses comparing the determined electrical parameter of fluid or fluids with a predetermined threshold value; and determining, based on the comparison between the determined parameter of fluid or fluids and the threshold value, one or more of whether the at least one or more of a liquid level and a humidity level in the at least one of the plurality of channels is sufficient, whether the at least one of the plurality of channels being filled with liquid, whether a patency of the at least one of the plurality of channels is given, and whether an electrical measurement instrument for measuring the electrical parameter is electrically connected to the endoscope (see Carlson paragraph [0054] disclosing determining if the channel is blocked or not connected correctly).
As to claim 8, Carlson discloses drawing liquid into the at least one of the plurality of channels comprises filling the at least one of the plurality of channels completely with the liquid (see Carlson paragraphs [0027]-[0030]).
As to claim 10, the endoscope of Carlson can have a channel for a water channel that extends from a water channel connection port to the distal end of the endoscope (see Carlson paragraph [0023] where the channel can be connected to a water source).
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) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,795,404 to Murphy et al.
Carlson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3, while Carlson discloses a suction pump and a liquid source (see Carlson Fig. 1, ref.#61 and 30), Carlson does not explicitly disclose fluidly connecting the plurality of channels to each other at the distal end of the endoscope by arranging a container onto the distal end of the endoscope; connecting a suction pump to one of the connection ports; connecting at least one liquid source to at least an other one of the connection ports; drawing the liquid into at least one of the plurality of channels by activating the suction pump so that the liquid is drawn from the liquid source through the at least one channel via the distal end towards the suction device. Murphy discloses a similar method for pre-cleaning an endoscope by fluidly connecting the plurality of channels to each other at the distal end of the endoscope by arranging a container onto the distal end of the endoscope; connecting a suction pump to one of the connection ports; connecting at least one liquid source to at least an other one of the connection ports; drawing the liquid into at least one of the plurality of channels by activating the suction pump so that the liquid is drawn from the liquid source through the at least one channel via the distal end towards the suction device (see Murphy Fig. 3 disclosing suction pump 27 connected to one of the connection ports, a liquid source 35 and drawing the liquid out via the distal end towards the suction device (see Murphy col. 4, lines 45-53) and a container 65 to connect the plurality of channels at a distal end of the endoscope). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Carlson as disclosed by Murphy in order to improve the cleaning, reduce turn around time and utilize component parts of an endoscopic system to remove the debris from the channels (see Murphy col. 1, line 46 – col. 2, line 32).
As to claim 9, the combination of Carlson and Murphy discloses the connecting at least one liquid source to at least an other one of the connection ports can comprise connecting a vessel that holds liquid to at least one of the connection ports (see Murphy Fig. 3, ref.#35).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0198548 to Fournier et al.
Carlson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4, Carlson discloses the electrical parameter is determined by one or more of electrical resistance measurement, electrical voltage measurement, electrical current measurement, electrical conductance measurement (see Carlson paragraph [0038]. While Carlson does not explicitly disclose the use of an ohmmeter or a multimeter to measure the electrical parameter, use of multimeters to measure electrical parameters are known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Fournier paragraph [0057]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a multimeter to measure the voltage/conductivity as is known in the art and the results would have been predictable.
As to claim 5, the combination of Carlson and Fournier discloses that the electrical measurement comprises contacting the at least one of the plurality of channels in which the electrical parameter of fluid or fluids is to be determined (see Carlson Fig, 1 where the measurements can be considered as contacting the channels).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0074742 to Lin et al.
Carlson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 6 and 7, Carlson does not explicitly disclose one or more of determining an electrical resistance between two distanced points and determining an electrical conductance between two distanced points of the at least one of the plurality of channels or an electrical conductivity. Lin discloses a similar endoscope cleaning method wherein the electrical conductivity is measured to determine the soil level of the cleaning liquid (see Lin paragraphs [0051]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include measuring the conductivity between two points as disclosed by Lin in order to monitor the cleanliness of the liquid to ensure that the endoscope is sufficiently cleaned.
Claim(s) 11, 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2011-139777A to Otani (see machine translation).
Carlson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, Carlson discloses providing an RFID chip that contains information about the endoscope to be processed in order to select a suitable processing program (see Carlson paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to include the pre-cleaning parameters of the endoscope, including the information about the determined electrical parameter of fluid or fluids in the channels, in order to select the suitable processing program as disclosed by Carlson (paragraph [0035], [0038]).
Carlson does not explicitly disclose that the RFID chip is a transponder, but use of RFID transponders are known in the art (see Otani paragraphs [0031]-[0033]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a RFID transponder as the RFID chip in order to send and receive wireless signals as disclosed by Otani.
As to claim 14, the combination of Carlson and Otani discloses that the RFID transponder can include an RFID antenna (see Otani paragraphs [0031]-[0033]).
As to claims 17 and 18, the combination of Carlson and Otani discloses that based on the information on the RFID chip, the suitable processing program is selected (see Carlson paragraph [0035]), and as such, is understood to include the suitable cleaning steps for cleaning the endoscope.
As to claim 19, the combination of Carlson and Otani discloses that the reading out the RFID transponder by using an RFID reader at a reprocessing location, prior to reprocessing the endoscope (see, e.g., Otani paragraphs [0031]-[0033] where the endoscope is identified at the cleaning location prior to starting the cleaning process).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation) in view of JP2011-139777A to Otani (see machine translation) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of WO2019/083366A1 to Knorth et al.
Carlson and Otani are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 12, the combination of Carlson and Otani does not explicitly disclose the at least one pre-cleaning parameter comprises information about an expiry date of the liquid to be drawn into at least one of the channels. Knorth discloses that it is known in the art to include information on an RFID tag with regards to the cleaning liquid status, including the lifetime (read as expiry date) (see Knorth page 9, line 28 – page 10, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include cleaning liquid information in the parameters as disclosed by Knorth in order to ensure use of the proper cleaning liquid.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017122434A1 to Carlson et al. (see machine translation) in view of JP2011-139777A to Otani (see machine translation) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of DE102013223375A1 to Albrecht et al. (see machine translation).
Carlson and Otani are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 13, the combination of Carlson and Otani does not explicitly disclose using a measurement instrument wherein the RFID transponder provides power to operate the measurement instrument. Albrecht discloses a similar endoscope cleaning method wherein the RFID is used to activate sensors for the cleaning process (see Albrecht paragraphs [0042]-[0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include measurement sensors that are powered by the RFID transponder as disclosed by Albrecht in order to avoid cables (see Albrecht paragraph [0046]).
As to claims 15 and 16, the combination of Carlson, Otani and Albrecht disclose that the RFID transponder can be and antenna and can be arranged on a portable device (see Otani paragraphs [0031]-[0033] disclosing an antenna and Carlson paragraph [0033]-[0035] where the reader and transponder can be either a portable computer or on the endoscope (read as portable device)).
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