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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shihoda (JP2022128907A).
As to claims 1 & 12, Shihoda teaches a washing and disinfection apparatus for a medical instrument (abstract), comprising: a washing tank (ref 13) that accommodates the medical instrument; a lid portion (ref 16) that covers an opening portion of the washing tank; a recessed portion that is provided in a lid main body portion of the lid portion and includes a bottom portion and a side wall portion that connects the bottom portion and the lid main body portion (see Figs.5-9 inner portion of the lid is recessed and has corresponding walls to define the recess, alternatively the recess can be defined by the portion of the lid in which the filter is held); and a bottom opening (e.g., interior of ref 51a which reaches filter, see [0041]) that is formed in the bottom portion and communicates with the inside of the washing tank, wherein the side wall portion is an inclined portion having a tapered shape from the lid main body portion toward the bottom portion (best seen by Figs.5-6). In the instance of the alternative citation to the recessed portion being the portion in which the filter is held, Shihoda does not disclose the shape being tapered. However, absent evidence to the contrary, a skilled artisan would reasonably find a change in the shape of the recess to be an obvious matter of choice (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 2, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a tubular portion (ref 51a) extending in a direction from the bottom opening toward the washing tank is provided at the bottom portion.
As to claim 3, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a cover (ref 52 including ref 43) that covers the recessed portion is provided on the lid portion.
As to claim 4, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the cover is provided with a filter accommodation portion (ref 51) that accommodates a filter.
As to claim 9, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the cover is provided with an outer lid (ref 52) that covers the filter accommodation portion.
As to claim 10, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a second ventilation (ref 52a) hole is formed in the outer lid.
As to claim 11, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an apparatus main body (ref 11) that performs washing and disinfection of the medical instrument accommodated in the washing tank, wherein the lid portion is attached to the apparatus main body to be rotationally movable between an open position where the opening portion is opened and a closed position where the opening portion is closed [0037].
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shihoda (JP2022128907A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bruce (US20150374868A1).
As to claim 5, Shihoda or Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 4 but does not disclose an inner lid and ventilation space. However, such features are known in the art, as seen by Bruce.
Bruce discloses an art related medical instrument cleaning system (abstract), wherein a filter element (ref 440, 540, or 640) is provided within a lid portion (see Figs.7A, 8, 9A, 11A). Bruce further indicates that a filter support member (refs 442, 542, or 642) are utilized in order to support the filter [0139-0140, 0158, 0176-0177, & 0207-0208]. As the filter support members cover a portion an opening through which air can flow, a skilled artisan would reasonably understand that such also acts as a lid of sorts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Shihoda to provide a filter support member (i.e., an inner lid) between the filter and the bottom opening in order to ensure support and securement of the filter as is known in the art (Bruce [0139-0140, 0158, 0176-0177, & 0207-0208]). Such a modification would also form a ventilation space which communicates the filter accommodation portion with the bottom portion.
As to claim 6, Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the inner lid has a top surface (e.g., see Bruce surface on which the filter rests) and an outer side surface (e.g., see Bruce surface opposite of the surface on which the filter rests; since the surface on which the filter rests can be considered an inner side surface, the surface opposite such surface can read on an outer side surface), and a first ventilation hole (see Bruce through holes exist on the outer side surface) is formed on the outer side surface.
As to claim 7, Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 5, wherein an inner lid mounting portion on which the inner lid is mounted is provided in the filter accommodation portion (see Bruce Figs. 7A, 8, 9A, 11A in conjunction with Shihoda Figs.5-9; area where the inner lid is mounted would be within the filter accommodation portion).
As to claim 8, Modified Shihoda teaches the washing and disinfection apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the filter accommodation portion accommodates the filter on a surface side opposite to a surface side facing the bottom portion of the inner lid (see Bruce Figs. 7A, 8, 9A, 11A in conjunction with Shihoda Figs.5-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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 supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights