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 .
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country. See application TW113142491A, filed 06 November 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”. In line 5, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”. In line 3, the recitation “each auxiliary” should be “each said auxiliary”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”. In line 3, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”. In line 7, the recitation “each coupling” should be “each said coupling”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, the recitation “each sliding” should be “each said sliding”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”. In line 3, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”. In line 5, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”. In line 3, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”. In line 5, the recitation “each flow” should be “each said flow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,454,901 B1 (Snyder) in view of US 2004/0011000 A1 (Lagerstedt).
With respect to claim 1: Snyder discloses an adjustable sterilization shelf comprising: a frame (cabinet 2) including a plurality of posts (shelf supports 60) disposed upright and around a sterilization space (interior of cabinet 2); and at least one adjustable board (shelves 70) disposed in the sterilization space, wherein the at least one adjustable board is slidable in a vertical direction (between mounting positions on the supports 60 and/or within the keyhole-shaped openings in the supports 60) and is coupled with the plurality of posts (via said keyhole-shaped openings in the supports 60).
Snyder does not disclose “wherein each of two opposite sides of the at least one adjustable board is provided with a flow guiding member, wherein each flow guiding member includes a flow guiding face facing the sterilization space, wherein the flow guiding face is at a first inclination angle to a surface of the at least one adjustable board, and wherein the first inclination angle is greater than 90 degrees” as claimed.
Snyder’s cabinet 2 is placed within an autoclave for sterilization (Abstract). In Fig. 1, Snyder shows a surgical tray 80 that is placed on a shelf 70, for sterilization when the cabinet 2 is in the autoclave. Snyder Fig. 10 and col. 5, lines 20-30 disclose that within the autoclave, heated air and steam enter the cabinet 2 to thereby sterilize the interior of cabinet 2 and its contents (e.g., surgical tray 80).
Lagerstedt discloses a trolley 1 for an autoclave, and the trolley 1 includes profiles 7 that receive packages 6 to be sterilized. The profiles 7 have holes 9 that expose packages to steam of an autoclave (Fig. 3 and [0016]). Further, the profiles 7 have sies 8 that are angled 15° or more from the vertical, typically between 15° and 30° (Fig. 4 and [0019]). By the angled sides 8, the steam and cooling water used in the autoclave reaches the packages 6 more easily ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Snyder’s shelves 70 to include Lagerstedt’s angled sides 8, to thereby have the heated steam and air in Snyder’s cabinet 2 reach the surgical trays 80, etc. on the shelves 70 more easily – in the same or similar way as Lagerstedt’s invention.
The angled sides 8 added to Snyder’s shelves 70 make obvious, as claimed, wherein each of two opposite sides (left and right sides) of the at least one adjustable board (shelves 70) is provided with a flow guiding member (angled sides 8), wherein each flow guiding member includes a flow guiding face facing the sterilization space (as in Lagerstedt Fig. 4 showing a face of each angled side 8 facing package 6), wherein the flow guiding face is at a first inclination angle to a surface of the at least one adjustable board (angled side 8 has an angle with respect to the bottom of profile 7), and wherein the first inclination angle is greater than 90 degrees (side 8 is angled 105° to 130° relative to the bottom of profile 7).
With respect to claim 11: Snyder, as modified, meets wherein the at least one adjustable board is in the form of a mesh board (Snyder Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,454,901 B1 (Snyder) in view of US 2004/0011000 A1 (Lagerstedt) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,972,783 A (Crissman).
With respect to claim 2: Snyder does not disclose “wherein the at least one adjustable board is provided with at least one pair of sliding members, wherein each sliding member includes at least one sliding portion which is slidable in the vertical direction and which is coupled with a respective one of the plurality of posts, wherein each sliding member includes a supporting face, wherein the supporting faces of the at least one pair of sliding members are located on a same horizontal plane, and wherein the at least one adjustable board is located on the supporting faces of the at least one pair of sliding members” as claimed.
Crissman discloses adjustable shelving that meets, as claimed, wherein the at least one adjustable board (shelf 156) is provided with at least one pair of sliding members (beams 152, 154), wherein each sliding member includes at least one sliding portion (J-shaped member cap 200) which is slidable in the vertical direction and which is coupled with a respective one of the plurality of posts (at least Fig. 6), wherein each sliding member includes a supporting face (Fig. 1: upper faces of beams 152, 154 on which shelf 156 is supported), wherein the supporting faces of the at least one pair of sliding members are located on a same horizontal plane (Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one adjustable board is located on the supporting faces of the at least one pair of sliding members (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Snyder’s shelf supports 60 and shelves 70 to be of Crissman’s construction, as an obvious alternative of the means for adjusting the height of the shelves 70 within the cabinet 2. One would be motivated to use Crissman’s means because they are heavy-duty, wide-span, and minimizes contamination via the shelf adjusting mechanism (Background of the Invention).
With respect to claim 3: Snyder, as modified, makes obvious wherein each flow guiding member (angled side 8) is coupled with the supporting faces of the at least one pair of sliding members.
With respect to claim 5: Snyder, as modified, makes obvious wherein each of the plurality of posts includes a plurality of positioning portions (Crissman’s beam apertures 134) spaced from each other in the vertical direction (Crissman Figs. 1-5), and wherein each sliding member includes a coupling portion (Crissman’s shot pin 180) securely coupled in one of the plurality of positioning portions (Crissman Figs. 6-8).
With respect to claim 6: Snyder, as modified, makes obvious wherein each sliding member (beam 152, 154) includes a support (body of the beam 152, 154) and a pin (shot pins 180), wherein each of two ends of the support forms one of the sliding portions (Crissman Fig. 1: each of two ends of each beam 152, 154 is slidably attached to a vertical post), wherein each sliding portion includes a receiving hole (“hole” formed by J-shaped member cap 200) slidably receiving a respective one of the plurality of posts (Crissman Fig. 6), wherein each of two ends of the pin forms one of the coupling portions (shot pins 180 form coupling portions at both end of beams 152, 154), wherein the two coupling portions are associated with the two sliding portions (the shot pins 180 pass through the J-shaped member cap 200), and wherein each coupling portion extends through a lateral hole of a respective one of the sliding portions (shot pins 180 extend through cap apertures 174) and is then securely coupled with one of the plurality of positioning portions of a respective one of the plurality of posts (Figs. 6-9).
With respect to claim 7: Snyder, as modified, makes obvious wherein each sliding member is provided with an elastic element (Crissman’s spring 166), wherein two ends of the elastic element respectively abut against a fixing portion of the support (base 164) and a force application portion of the pin (Figs. 6-7: portion of shot pin 180 contacted by tab end 170 of spring 166).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,454,901 B1 (Snyder) in view of US 2004/0011000 A1 (Lagerstedt) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0066160 A1 (De Samber).
With respect to claim 11: In the rejections above, Snyder’s shelf 70 in Fig. 1 is interpreted to meet “wherein the at least one adjustable board is in the form of a mesh board” as claimed.
If Snyder’s shelf 70 is held to not meet “mesh board” as claimed, see De Samber. De Samber discloses a metal mesh shelf plate 14 used for disinfection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Snyder’s shelf 70 to be a metal mesh plate, as an obvious variation of a shelf that allows steam and air therethrough (for sterilization).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights