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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Upon further consideration and in response to Applicant’s Response to Election dated 26 Nov 2025 the Requirement for Restriction dated 14 Nov 2025 is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 Dec 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, line 5 “the first pressure difference between greater than the second pressure difference” should likely read “the first pressure difference being greater than the second pressure difference” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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 12 recites the limitation “the first and second fixed volumes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the first and second fixed volumes" will be interpreted as “the first and second volumes” as recited in Claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williamson et al (US 5551850).
Regarding Claim 1, Williamson et al disclose an apparatus (12 generally in Figure 2). The apparatus comprising:
a housing (12);
a liquid reservoir disposed within the housing (64 shown installed within 12 in Figure 22);
a liquid outlet configured to couple to an instrument (16 to the needle 18);
a liquid supply line disposed in the housing (at least 62),
the liquid supply line being fluidically coupled to the liquid reservoir and to the liquid outlet (Figure 4 from 62 to 16),
the liquid supply line having at least one portion that is flexible (132; Col 8, lines 44-51);
and first and second valves disposed along the liquid supply line (valves 142 and 144 with pinchers 122 and 124),
the first valve being disposed upstream of the at least one flexible portion and the second valve being disposed downstream of the at least one flexible portion (Figure 6),
the at least one flexible portion being compressible to pump liquid disposed within the liquid supply line toward the liquid outlet (via 250; Col 8, line 66 - Col 9 line 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Williamson et al disclose an electrical line having at least a portion disposed within the housing (at least the voltage regulator circuits of Col 27, lines 27-34),
the electrical line being configured to couple a processor to the instrument (Col 27, lines 27-34 where the processor controls flow of fluid to the instrument).
Regarding Claim 7, Williamson et al disclose an apparatus (12 generally in Figure 2). The apparatus comprising:
an inflow port couplable to a liquid reservoir (64 shown installed within 12 in Figure 22 and attached to inflow port 62);
an outflow port couplable to an instrument (16 to the needle 18);
a flexible liquid channel coupled to the inflow port and the outflow port (132),
the flexible liquid channel configured to be compressed such that liquid within the flexible liquid channel is displaced toward the outflow port (via 250; Col 8, line 66 - Col 9 line 10);
an inflow valve disposed upstream of the flexible liquid channel (valves 142 with pinchers 122);
and an outflow valve disposed downstream of the flexible liquid channel (valves 144 with pinchers 124),
the outflow valve configured to open (Figure 31D; Col 25, lines 34-43),
when the flexible liquid channel is compressed (Figure 31D; Col 25, lines 34-43),
such that a first volume of liquid can pass through the outflow valve toward the outflow port (Figure 31D; Col 25, lines 34-43),
and the outflow valve configured to close and the inflow valve configured to open (Figure 31A; Col 25, lines 10-19),
when the flexible liquid channel transitions back to an uncompressed state after being compressed (Figure 31A; Col 25, lines 10-19),
such that a second volume of liquid can pass through the inflow valve and into the flexible liquid channel (Figure 31A; Col 25, lines 10-19).
Regarding Claim 10, Williamson et al disclose further comprising a pump mechanism configured to compress the flexible liquid channel (plunger 120 of Figures 15-16).
Regarding Claim 11, Williamson et al disclose wherein the pump mechanism is disposed in a first housing (Figure 4 within 22),
and the flexible liquid channel is disposed in a second housing (Figure 5 within cassette 86),
the first housing defining a receptacle for receiving at least a portion of the second housing such that (Figure 5),
when the second housing is received in the receptacle (Figure 5),
the pump mechanism can compress the flexible liquid channel (Figure 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al (US 5551850) in view of Yokoi et al (US 5749829).
Regarding Claim 2, Williamson et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a gas supply line having at least a portion disposed within the housing, the gas supply line being configured to couple a gas source disposed outside of the housing to the instrument.
Yokoi et al teach an apparatus (Figure 1) with an instrument (5 generally) and a gas supply line (35; Figure 3) having at least a portion disposed within the housing (within 3), the gas supply line (35) being configured to couple a gas source (24) disposed outside of the housing (outside of 3) to the instrument (5).
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 apparatus of Williamson et al with the gas supply line as taught by Yokoi et al for the advantage of aerating and draining fluids from the instrument to clean the instrument, as taught by Yokoi et al (Col 4, lines 27-32).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Williamson et al (US 5551850).
Regarding Claim 6, Williamson et al disclose where the liquid outlet is configured to supply a fixed volume of liquid in response to the compression of the at least one flexible portion of the liquid supply line (Col 35, line 66 - Col 36, line 2),
but fails to expressly disclose where the fixed volume of liquid being less than about 20 pL.
Applicant’s specification states that the fixed volume of liquid being less than about 20 pL, but the specification does not disclose that such a scale is required or critical (see ¶ 76).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fixed volume of liquid being less than about 20 pL because the volume of the fluid does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal volume based on user defined Criteria, such a medication dosage.
Regarding Claim 12, Williamson et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first and second fixed volumes of liquid being less than about 20 pL.
Applicant’s specification states that the first and second fixed volumes of liquid being less than about 20 pL, but the specification does not disclose that such a scale is required or critical (see ¶ 76).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fixed volume of liquid being less than about 20 pL because the volume of the fluid does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal volume based on user defined Criteria, such a medication dosage.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al (US 5551850) in view of Kramer et al (US 4411652).
Regarding Claim 8, Williamson et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the outflow valve and the inflow valve are one-way check valves.
Kramer et al teach a fluid pump (2) with an outflow valve (22) and an inflow valve (21) wherein the outflow valve and the inflow valve are one-way check valves (Figure 2 with inflow valve 21 and outflow valve 22; Col 3, lines 45-61).
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 pump of Williamson et al with the inflow and outflow valves as taught by Kramer et al for the advantage of simple substitution of one known element for another (the check valves of Kramer et al for the pinch valves of Williamson et al) to obtain predictable results (to control the flow of fluid through the compression chamber of the peristaltic pump).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Williamson et al (US 5551850) in view of Kramer et al (US 4411652).
Regarding Claim 9, Williamson et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the outflow valve is configured to open in response to a first pressure difference between an inlet of the outflow valve and an outlet of the outflow valve,
and the inflow valve is configured to open in response to a second pressure difference between an inlet of the inflow valve and an outlet of the inflow valve,
the first pressure difference between greater than the second pressure difference.
Kramer et al teach a fluid pump (generally in Figure 2) with an outflow valve (22) and an inflow valve (21) wherein the outflow valve is configured to open in response to a first pressure difference between an inlet of the outflow valve and an outlet of the outflow valve (Figure 2; caused by the pressure of the fluid from 17), and the inflow valve is configured to open in response to a second pressure difference between an inlet of the inflow valve and an outlet of the inflow valve (to fill 17 as seen in Figure 2).
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 inflow and outflow valve of Williamson et al with the inflow and outflow valve as taught by Kramer et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the pressure responsive inflow and outflow valves of Kramer et al within the system of Williamson et al) to yield predictable results (to control the flow of fluid through the compression chamber of the peristaltic pump).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inflow and outflow valves of Kramer et al such that the first pressure difference between greater than the second pressure difference since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal pressure based on user defined Criteria, thereby preventing flow through the outflow check valve without compression of the compression space by the pump plunger.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banik et al (US 7479106) in view of Boulais et al (US 8353860) in further view of Aluru et al (US 20210127963).
Regarding Claim 13, Banik et al disclose an apparatus (Figure 2). The apparatus comprising:
a liquid supply line including a liquid inlet that is fluidically coupled to a liquid reservoir and a liquid outlet that is fluidically coupled to an instrument (from 150 to endoscope 18 via the manifold 140),
the liquid supply line having at least one portion that is configured to be compressed to pump liquid disposed within the liquid supply line toward the instrument (the flexible tube of the peristaltic pump 145 as disclosed in Col 5, lines 18-25);
a pump mechanism configured to compress the at least portion of the liquid supply line (145; Col 5, lines 18-25);
a controller (106 and 108) connected to the instrument (via at least control cables 132 and 134);
the controller configured to:
receive a signal from a sensor disposed at the instrument indicating that a device is positioned for cleaning relative to the instrument (Col 7, lines 18-33 disclose receiving signals from sensors (like 245) indicating a device (the lens of the endoscope as disclosed in Col 7, lines 38-46));
in response to receiving the signal from the sensor, (Col 7, lines 18-33)
activating a wash sequence in which a first volume of liquid is delivered into the instrument to clean the device (via the pulsating jet of Col 8, lines 12-13);
and activating the pump mechanism to compress the at least one portion of the liquid supply line to pump a second volume of liquid toward the instrument (via the pulsating jet of Col 8, lines 12-13),
but fails to expressly disclose the controller operatively coupled to the pump mechanism, and supplying a second volume of liquid toward the instrument such that the instrument is primed for a subsequent wash sequence.
Boulais et al teach an apparatus (Figure 1) with a controller (132), the controller operatively coupled to the pump mechanism (130 connected to 120 and instrument 110).
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 controller of Banik et al with the controller as taught by Boulais et al for the advantage of managing the operation of the pump with the controller, as taught by Boulais et al (Col 5, lines 10-21).
Aluru et al teaches an apparatus (Figure 1) for supplying a second volume of liquid toward the instrument such that the instrument is primed for a subsequent wash sequence (¶ 45).
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 apparatus of Banik et al, as modified by Boulais et al with the apparatus as taught by Aluru et al for the advantage of priming the wash fluid, as taught by Aluru et al (¶ 45).
Regarding Claim 14, Banik et al disclose a gas supply line configured to deliver gas to the instrument (the air line of 140; Col 5, lines 34-36);
and a gas control valve configured to control the delivery of the gas (Col 5, lines 56-67),
the controller configured to activate the wash sequence by controlling the gas control valve to deliver the gas to propel the first volume of liquid into the instrument (Col 8, lines 13-15).
Regarding Claim 15, Banik et al disclose an electrical line configured to couple the sensor to the controller (via 142 to at least sensors 245).
Regarding Claim 16, Banik et al disclose a cable housing that houses at least a portion of the liquid supply line (130; Figure 2),
the gas supply line (130; Figure 2),
and the electrical line (130; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Banik et al disclose wherein the cable housing includes a first end that is couplable to the controller and a second end that is couplable to the instrument (130; Figure 2).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Banik et al (US 7479106) in view of Boulais et al (US 8353860) in further view of Aluru et al (US 20210127963).
Regarding Claim 18, Banik et al, as modified by Boulais et al and Aluru et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the first and second fixed volumes of liquid being less than about 20 pL.
Applicant’s specification states that the first and second fixed volumes of liquid being less than about 20 pL, but the specification does not disclose that such a scale is required or critical (see ¶ 76).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fixed volume of liquid being less than about 20 pL because the volume of the fluid does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal volume based on user defined Criteria, such a wash dosage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753