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
This is a first action on the merits for this continuous application filed on 10/21/2024
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1, lines 6-7; Applicant recites “such that the portable reprocessing …supplies at an appropriate point”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1 since the term “appropriate point” is ambiguous and is indefinite. There is no standard to compare to as to what precisely and clearly the term “appropriate point” represent. And one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what the term “appropriate point” represents. It is respectfully requested that the term
“appropriate point” be replaced with clear and concise words. The same applies to claim 8, lines 13-17.
In claim 2, line 2; Applicant recites “more flexible bladder-based containers”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 2 since the term “more flexible bladder-based containers” is vague and indefinite. It is respectfully requested that the term “more flexible bladder-based containers” be replaced with clear and concise words. The same applies to claim 3, line 2; with the term “more stiff compartments” and to claim 12, line 2; with the term “stiff compartments”.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 area rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oberleitner et al. (US 6,585,934 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Oberleitner et al. discloses a storage case (Fig.1:20) for reprocessing supplies for use in a portable reprocessing system, the storage case comprising:
a plurality of containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) for the reprocessing supplies necessary for reprocessing medical devices (col.4, lines 29-39), wherein each container is separated and enclosed in a water- and air-tight manner by means of a seal (Fig.2:150 and Fig.6), wherein each container is oriented relative to the other containers such that the portable reprocessing system reliably dispenses the reprocessing supplies at an appropriate point in a reprocessing cycle based upon a position for each
container in the storage case (col.12, lines 58-67 through col.14, line 47),
wherein the plurality of containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) is each capable of being sized to hold enough reprocessing supplies for one of the following: a single-use format, a daily-use format, or a full-life format,
wherein when the plurality of containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) is each capable of being in the single-use format, each container is sized to hold reprocessing supplies for a single reprocessing cycle,
wherein when the plurality of containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) is each capable of being in the daily-use format, each container is sized to hold reprocessing supplies used for the reprocessing cycles for an entire day, thereby facilitating daily replacement of the storage case, and
wherein when the plurality of containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) is each capable of being in the full-life format, each container is sized to hold reprocessing supplies for a full usable life of the medical device being reprocessed, and
wherein each container (Fig.2:28 and 30) is held together such that the reprocessing supplies needed for the reprocessing cycle are combined in one single unit in the storage case (Fig.2:20).
Regarding claim 2, the containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) in the Oberleitner et al. storage case are capable of comprising one or more flexible bladder-based containers for the reprocessing supplies.
Regarding claim 3, the containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) in the Oberleitner et al. storage case are capable of comprising one or more stiff compartments for the reprocessing supplies.
Regarding claim 4, Oberleitner et al. discloses that the plurality of containers further comprises one or more one-way valves (Fig.6 and col.10, lines 10-16) to prevent leakage or contamination.
Regarding claim 5, Oberleitner et al. discloses that the containers further comprises one or
more spring-loaded pistons that apply force to inject the reprocessing supplies into a closed loop fluid pathway (Fig.6 and col.9, lines 63-67 through col.10, lines 1-35) of the portable reprocessing system.
Regarding claim 7, the containers (Fig.2:28 and 30) in the Oberleitner et al. storage case are capable of holding reprocessing supplies include reprocessing liquids and lubricants (col.13, lines 14-18 and col.14, lines 48-67 through col.15, line 64).
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberleitner et al. (US 6,585,934 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of O’Dougherty et al. (US 8,849,448 B2).
Oberleitner et al. appears silent to disclose placing NFC or RFID-tags on the containers.
O’Dougherty et al. discloses a liquid handling system that includes containers (Fig.1) where each container includes an RFID tag (col.3, lines 38-51) in order to assure proper association of a particular liquid to a particular process (col.1, lines 32-38). 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 to add O’Dougherty et al. RFID tags to Oberleitner et al. containers in order to assure proper association of a particular liquid to a particular process.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 8-20: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 8 are the inclusions of a portable medical washer-disinfector system that is personal, hand-held, and used by a user while being carried where the system has a mounting tray and plurality of containers.
Regarding claims 8-20, the closest prior art of record (Oberleitner et al. and O’Dougherty et al.), and upon additional searches do not each or fairly suggest providing a portable medical washer-disinfector system that is personal, hand-held, and used by a user while being carried. And the system has a mounting tray and plurality of containers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights