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
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/10/2026.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 “a generally planar base plate” and first/second “generally U shaped region”, and it is not clear what is required in consideration of the use of the term “generally”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-4 recite “U” shaped region and use of quotation marks in the claim text renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 3 recites an endoscope cart and it is not clear if the claim is positively reciting the cart or if it should be clearly written only in terms of functional language limitations so as to not require the cart.
Claim 5 recites “generally pentagonal” and it is not clear what is required in consideration of the use of the term “generally”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “the hanger is a single monolithic structure” and the claim is indefinite because monolithic would having an ordinary meaning or interpretation to require only a single piece while claim 1 requires the hanger to be comprised of a base plate and an arched member.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Haden (US 10,450,125).
Regarding claim 1, Haden (hereafter “D1”) discloses a hanger (mount 22, structure 100) for hanging a fluid reservoir (12) relative to an endoscope cart (mounted via structure 100 to a pole/bed/chair etc.; capable of attaching to an endoscope cart – col. 8, lines 3-8), the hanger comprising: a generally planar base plate (structure 100); an arched member (22 is curved to comprise multiple curved portions) extending from an upper surface of the base plate (figure 2), the arched member including a first generally "U" shaped region (end having attachments clips 32/36) and a second generally "U" shaped region (end holding 12); and at least one arm extending from the arched member (at clips 32/36), the at least one arm configured to receive a tubing (14); wherein the second generally "U" shaped region is configured to receive a portion of a fluid reservoir (12) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the first generally "U" shaped region (end of 22 having clips 32/36) extends from the upper surface of the base plate (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the first generally "U" shaped region (end of 22 having clips 32/36) has a height greater than a raised perimeter of a shelf of an endoscope cart (capable of cart attachment so as to be higher than a perimeter).
Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses wherein the second generally "U" shaped region (end supporting 12) curves away from a lateral edge of the base plate (at 100) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, D1 discloses a silicone coating of the mount (22) which is secured to a lower surface of the base (100) thereby discloses a gasket secured to a lower surface of the base plate.
Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses wherein the at least one arm (32/36) extends generally parallel to a plane of the base plate (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses further comprising a clamp (clip 36) at a free end of the at least one arm.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, D1 discloses wherein the hanger is a single monolithic structure (forms a whole or unitary device).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haden (US 10,450,125) in view of Foote et al. (US 2020/0230272).
Regarding claim 10, D1 discloses use of metal or metal alloy for the mount (22) (col. 8, line 14) but does not specifically state the use of ionic silver or copper.
Foote et al. discloses use of ionic silver or copper for tubes (111, 112) of an IV pole (being a fluid support device) for the purpose of anti-microbial properties ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize ionic silver or copper for the metal material of D1 (as taught in Foote et al.) for the purpose of providing anti-microbial properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights