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 .
Response to Amendment
No amendments to the claims in the response filed on 07/13/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-27 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-27 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the device of Nijland functions in a different way than that of claim 1, because it is not configured as an adapter and does not teach an adapter for connecting a port of a channel of a surgical instrument to a cleaning fluid supply.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations stating “for connecting a port of a channel of a surgical instrument to a cleaning fluid supply” is considered intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines adapter as a “a device for connecting two parts”.
Applicant argues that it is not clear how the adapter of Brown could be combined with the exit port of Nijland because the adapter of Brown has a completely different purpose.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Brown teaches an adapter used for cleaning ([0006]), and Nijland’ds deice “allows easy cleaning and (re)-sterilization” ([0050] of Nijland). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, that teaches cleaning and resterilization, with the device of Brown that teaches cleaning a device using an adapter. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the fluid must be outside of a human body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Nijland, in view of Brown, does teaches the limitations as recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280456 to Nijland et al. (hereinafter “Nijland”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0070211 to Brown et al. (hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding claim 1, Nijland discloses an adapter for connecting a port of a channel of a surgical instrument to a cleaning fluid supply, the adapter comprising: a rigid housing (3, Fig. 1, [0025]) with a port interface (3b, Fig. 1, [0028]),wherein the port interface comprises a gasket (22, Fig. 2, [0034])with a central opening for guiding the fluid into the port of the channel (24, Fig. 2, [0034]), the port interface with the gasket is configured to be pressed along a pressing direction on the port of the channel to establish a sealing and rinse the channel with the cleaning fluid ([0035]), and the gasket is deformable along the pressing direction in order to fit differently configured ports ([0035]).
Nijland fails to expressly teach a connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply.
However, Brown teaches of an adapter (60, Fig. 4, [0031]) including a connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply (64, 62, Fig. 6, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland to utilize a connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply, as taught by Brown. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of connecting to a delivery system that supplies the cleaning fluid to the supply passage ([0031] of Brown).
Regarding claim 2, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, and Nijland further discloses wherein the gasket comprises a flexible sealing lip (23, Fig. 2, [0034]), wherein the flexible sealing lip is configured to curve itself around the port opening of the port (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 2, and Nijland further discloses wherein the flexible sealing lip comprises an outer sealing surface (outer surface of 23, Fig. 2, [0034]) and an inner sealing surface (25, Fig. 2, [0034]), the outer sealing surface surrounding the inner sealing surface and the inner sealing surface surrounding the central opening in a circumferential direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 3, and Nijland further discloses wherein the outer sealing surface (funnel shaped outer surface of 23, Fig. 2, [0034]) is curved in an opposite direction as the inner sealing surface (25, Fig. 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 3, and Nijland further discloses wherein each of the outer sealing surface and the inner sealing surface have a conical frustum shape defining a concavity therebetween (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 3, and Nijland further discloses wherein the outer sealing surface is surrounded by a ring shaped trim (21, Fig. 2, [0026]), and one or more of the inner sealing surface protrudes in the pressing direction from the trim and the outer sealing surface is recessed in the pressing direction compared to the trim ([0014], [0026]-[0027]) .
Regarding claim 7, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 2, and Nijland further discloses wherein the central opening is formed as a gasket channel extending in the pressing direction (23, Fig. 1, [0035]), and a wall of the gasket channel is flexible in a radial direction of the gasket ([0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, and Nijland further discloses wherein the gasket comprises an elastic seal with a toroidal shape (25, Fig. 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 8, and Nijland further discloses wherein a height of a cross section of the elastic seal in the pressing direction (H, Fig. 4, [0037]) is larger than a width of the cross section in a direction perpendicular to the pressing direction (D, Fig. 4, [0037]- an optimum is to be found between increasing the stability of the central bore by choosing a higher ratio H/D).
Regarding claim 10, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 8, but Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach wherein the elastic seal is compressible in the pressing direction to less than 80% of its length.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, so that the elastic seal is compressible in the pressing direction to less than 80% of its length, as claimed, since Nijland already teaches the premise that the seal can be compressed ([0041]-[0045]) and the dimensions can be adjusted accordingly ([0036]), and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 8, but Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach wherein the elastic seal is compressible in the pressing direction to less than 50% of its length.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, so that the elastic seal is compressible in the pressing direction to less than 50% of its length, as claimed, since Nijland already teaches the premise that the seal can be compressed ([0041]-[0045]) and the dimensions can be adjusted accordingly ([0036]), and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 16, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, and Nijland, further discloses wherein the gasket comprises one or more of silicone, plastic and rubber ([0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 17, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, wherein the gasket is configured to seal between the port interface and the port that is partially water-tight ([0035]), but Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach wherein a water tightness of the seal is between 80% and 100%.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gasket of Nijland, in view of Brown, so that a water tightness of the seal is between 80% and 100%, since Nijland already teaches the premise that the gasket is arranged to reduce the risk of leakages ([0036]), and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 18, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 17, but Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach wherein the water tightness of the seal is between 80% and 90%.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gasket of Nijland, in view of Brown, so that a water tightness of the seal is between 80% and 90%, since Nijland already teaches the premise that the gasket is arranged to reduce the risk of leakages ([0036]), and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 19, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, and Nijland further discloses wherein the housing has a cylindrical shape (Nijland: 3, Fig. 1, [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 19, and Nijland further discloses wherein the cylindrical shape comprises a first cylinder (3, Fig. 1, [0025]) connected to a second cylinder by a conical frustum (section including 3a, Fig. 1, [0025]), wherein a diameter of the first cylinder is larger than a diameter of the second cylinder (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, and Nijland further discloses wherein the port interface is arranged in a first base area of the housing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1.
Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach wherein the connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply is arranged on a lateral surface of the housing.
However, Brown further teaches wherein the connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply is arranged on a lateral surface of the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, so that the connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply is arranged on a lateral surface of the housing, as taught by Brown. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of connecting to a delivery system that supplies the cleaning fluid to the supply passage ([0031] of Brown).
Regarding claim 23, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, and Nijland, further discloses wherein the housing comprises a pressure receiving area at a second base area of the housing opposite the port interface (Fig. 2), the pressure receiving area being configured to receive a pressing force to press the gasket on the port of the channel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 23.
Nijland further discloses wherein the pressure receiving area is configured as a robot arm interface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1.
Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach further comprising an inner channel extending inside the housing, the inner channel connecting the connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply with the port interface.
However, Brown further teaches further comprising an inner channel extending inside the housing, the inner channel connecting the connection interface for the cleaning fluid supply with the port interface (64, 62, Fig. 6, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, to utilize an inner channel in the manner as taught by Brown. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of connecting to a delivery system that supplies the cleaning fluid to the supply passage ([0031] of Brown).
Regarding claim 26, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 25.
Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach wherein a diameter of the inner channel decreases in a direction towards the port interface.
However, Brown further teaches wherein a diameter of the inner channel decreases in a direction towards the port interface (64, 62, Fig. 6, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, to utilize an inner channel in the manner as taught by Brown. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of connecting to a delivery system that supplies the cleaning fluid to the supply passage ([0031] of Brown).
Regarding claim 27, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, but Nijland, in view of Brown fails to expressly teach further comprising a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is configured to detachably fix the port interface to the port of the channel.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adapter of Nijland, in view of Brown, to include a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is configured to detachably fix the port interface to the port of the channel since making components separable requires only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C)).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijland in view of Brown and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0378486 to McCabe.
Regarding claim 12, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1, but Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach further comprising a rigid tube extending through the central opening of the gasket.
However, McCabe teaches of an adapter (McCabe: Fig. 2) further comprising a rigid tube extending through the central opening of the gasket (McCabe: 46, Fig. 2, [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, to utilize a rigid tube extending through the central opening of the gasket, as taught by McCabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of permitting the flow of fluid (McCabe: [0025])
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijland in view of Brown and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0238794 to Iwanaga et al. (hereinafter “Iwanaga”).
Regarding claim 13, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1.
Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach further comprising a spring connecting the housing to the gasket, wherein the spring is configured to absorb a force resulting from pressing the gasket on the port of the channel.
However, Iwanaga teaches of an analogous device (Fig. 2) further comprising a spring connecting the housing to the gasket (77 c, Fig. 3, [0044]), wherein the spring is configured to absorb a force resulting from pressing the gasket on the port of the channel (77 c, Fig. 3, [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, to utilize a spring, as taught by Iwanaga. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of compressing the components ([0061] of Iwanaga).
Regarding claim 14, Nijland, in view of Brown and Iwanaga, teaches the adapter according to claim 13, but Nijland, in view of Brown and Iwanaga fails to expressly teach wherein the spring is a flat spring.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the device of Nijland, in view of Brown and Iwanaga to be a flat spring, since Iwanaga already teaches the premise of a spring and since a change in shape of a component or device is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art MPEP2144.04(IV)(B).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the spring of Iwanaga to be a flat spring since applicant has not disclosed that having a flat spring solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of spring being flat, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijland in view of Brown and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0268654 to Krywyj et al. (hereinafter “Krywyj”).
Regarding claim 15, Nijland, in view of Brown, teaches the adapter according to claim 1.
Nijland, in view of Brown, fails to expressly teach further comprising a notification device configured to output an acoustic signal when the gasket is pressed on the port of the channel with one or more of a force and pressure exceeding a predetermined threshold.
However, Krywyj teaches of an analogous device further comprising a notification device configured to output an acoustic signal when the gasket is pressed on the port of the channel with one or more of a force and pressure exceeding a predetermined threshold ([0021], [0034], [0240]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nijland, in view of Brown, to utilize an acoustic signal, as taught by Krywyj. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of generating a notification or alert and sending it to an external device (e.g., a controller with a memory, described herein, may include instructions for detecting this event, and generating and transmitting the notification) ([0240] of Krywyj).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights