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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection under the primary reference LeBlond have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of record under LeBlond as the primary reference has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the 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). To reiterate, Applicant contends that there is no motivation to combine Yang and Koester. However, both references describe a network of dispensers of various types communicating with a controller various types of information and then alerting the user in different ways. Koester merely teaching a rearrangement of features already disclosed or functionally disclosed in Yang. It been long held that a rearrangement of parts of an invention is obvious and thus patentability cannot hinge on such reorganization.
Applicant argues that two separate items of Yang cannot equate to the controller of the preset claims. However, the claim is silent to any structural aspects of the controller except that is separate and distinct from each dispenser. Here, the two items of Yang as pointed out by the Applicant together form a controller capable of performing the functions as claimed as clearly seen in Fig. 1, that the control system of Yang encompasses all these structures. Further delineation of the controller is required to further distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art of record.
Applicant argues that because Yang monitors devices around a house, it does monitor multiple devices in a single washroom. However, multiple devices around house inherently includes at least one in a washroom which is implicitly capable of having more than one house therein. Further, para. 6 of Yang explicitly states this system may be implemented in businesses as well that are known in the art to have bigger bathrooms with multiple dispenses to accommodate more usage. Thus, a plurality of soap dispensers in one bathroom as further made apparent by the modification of Yang in view of LeBlond teaches placing said plurality in one room. Further delineation of the is required to further distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of record.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Koester doesn’t teach shining a light on at least one of plurality of dispensers that has a servicing need. However, Yang already teaches an indicator at the dispenser in Para. 33, 35 & 80, that communicates to the user the servicing need of a particular dispenser and its location, thus Koester introduced to show said indicators may be flashing lights.
Applicant argues that the device of Yang doesn’t teach focused detecting of a user in a washroom. However, Yang expressly states “alerts may also be sent or triggered, in whole or in part, in response to data received from user computing device, such as GPS coordinates or other location data. Thus, the device of Yang is inherently capable of detecting when the user is nearby and able to issue alerts based on said location. Simply because this location data can be used in other means such as reminding the user to grab replacements does not negate its applicability to satisfy the claim language. Further delineation of the is required to further distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of record.
In response to applicant's argument that Koester is concerned with hygiene compliance and not servicing needs of the dispensers themselves and thus is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, these inventions relate to a network of dispensers intercommunicating various information and informing the user of pertinent data points as programed by the user. Thus, modifying the Yang with the benefits of additional alert cues would only serve to benefit those systems and their users with additional means of indicating a programmed need of the system. Further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually i.e. Koester is silent to service mode or servicing need, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the primary references of Yang already disclose servicing modes issuing servicing needs. Koester is introduced that alert cues may take a visual form such as a light on individual dispensers.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to place the domestic appliance communication system in the room of dispenser as taught by Koester. However, the law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular variable is critical, generally by showing that the claimed variable achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art variable. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case the specification of this application has placed no criticality on said location stating that it may be proximate to the washroom or in the same room (para. 19). Further, there is nothing in the primary references, Yang, teaching away from a repositioning of the controller. It’s unclear how one of ordinary skill would not find placing the controller in a desired location would be anything other than a simple matter of design choice.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2015/0366411 A1) and further in view of Koester et al. (US Patent No. 10,818,157), Rexach et al. (US 2019/0089550 A1 with priority to 62/559,199), Yenni (US 2009/0119142 A1), and LeBlond et al. (US Patent No. 7,242,307), and as evidenced by Osborne, Jr. (US 2016/0353947 A1).
Re: Claim 1 and 8, Yang discloses the claimed invention including a dispensing system comprising:
a plurality of dispensers (106) and dispense a respective consumable hygiene product; and a controller (100), remote to the plurality of dispensers (Fig. 1 depicts as a separate device), and figure 5 depicts a handheld controller that may be brought into the bathroom and is separate from the dispensers themselves (Para. 70, handheld controller) except for expressly stating the controller is in the same room as the dispensers. However, Koester teaches placing the controller (20) in the same room as the dispensers (110) but separate and distinct, and remote from them (Col. 5, lines 48-50, separately mounted controller in the room)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to place the controller in the same room as the dispensers at taught by Koester, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, Koester states in col. 5, lines 48-50 that in such a rearrangement is a matter of design choice since it is contemplated that the controller can be mounted separately or can be located on one dispenser.
Yang discloses a plurality of dispensers includes any domestic appliance where consumables are used (Para. 5,12, variety of dispensing devices may be used) except for expressly mentioning a paper towel and paper tissue being one of them. However, LeBlond teaches a dispensing system (10) including a plurality of dispensers including at least a bath tissue dispenser (64), a paper towel dispenser, or both and a soap dispenser (62) (Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines 1-7, a plurality of domestic appliances can include soap dispensers and paper dispensers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a paper dispenser as one of the domestic appliances as taught by LeBlond, since LeBlond teaches that washrooms include, along with soap dispensers, paper dispensers and toilet paper dispenser appliances, and Yang already teaches monitoring additional domestic appliances in washrooms (Para. 28, bathroom appliance monitoring) and including paper dispensers in the system of Yang would have been obvious to a user in the art, as an additional function.
Further, Yang teaching the controller having a service mode (120) and an operation mode (110) different than the service mode (Para. 32-33, operation mode and service mode modules), wherein, when in the service mode, the controller is configured cause the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to issue an audible or visual indication of a servicing need of at least one of the plurality of dispensers (Fig. 5, Para. 70, the dispenser issues a visual depicts the controller in service mode notifying the user visually of the consumption state of each dispenser),
wherein the servicing need is one of the at least one of the plurality of dispensers having:
low or no consumable hygiene product remaining (Para. 33, low level of product),
an electrical or mechanical malfunction (Para. 33, malfunction) except for specifying the malfunction is a jam. However, as evidenced by Osborne a malfunction may include a jam preventing the at least one of the plurality of dispensers from dispensing or from properly dispensing (Osborne: Para. 45, dispensing jam is a service need).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a jam as a servicing condition as taught by Osborne, since such a modification would allow the user to bring the appropriate tools to the dispenser to fix the jam rather than sending a general malfunction alert; and
a low battery condition (Para. 33, low battery);
each of the plurality of dispensers has an identifier (Fig. 5 depicts and Para. 63, each dispenser with its own identifier), and the controller has a speaker and, when in the service mode, is configured to communicate the servicing need of the at least one of the plurality of dispensers, its identifier, and its location (Para. 33, 35 & 80, communicates to the user the servicing need of a particular dispenser and its location) except for verbally speaking said need. However, Rexach teaches a controller having a speaker and, when in the service mode, is configured to verbally speak both the servicing need of the at least one of the plurality of dispensers/devices and the identifier of the at least one of the plurality of dispensers/devices, and a location of the at least one of the plurality of dispensers/devices in the washroom (62/559,199: Para. 42, 71, 84-86,305 speaker for verbally speaking and receiving commands, implicitly if the controller is communicating a servicing need the controller is capable of telling the user where said need is as evidenced in para. 291), and the location comprising at least one of a location the washroom stored within the controller (Para. 291, the controller capable of relaying location of the device identified for service based on geography and layout of the bathroom).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a speaker as taught by Rexach, since such a modification allows for handsfree interaction with the controller for receiving and giving verbal cues as to the condition of the dispenser;
Yang in view of Rexach disclose the claimed invention except for expressly stating a preprogrammed map of the washroom. However, Yenni discloses a location of a device comprising at least one of a location from a preprogrammed map of the washroom stored within the controller (Para. 120, preprogrammed map of the washroom).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a preprogrammed map of the washroom as taught by Yenni, since Yenni states in paragraph 120 that such a modification allows the controller configuration can also utilize and take into account a Cartesian mapping (method of identifying location of fixtures within a drawn restroom grid) of the restroom fixture and probabilistic models of the restroom fixture usage, such that the washroom may be modified to maximize the usage of an asset or alternative restroom facilities without a risk of a monitoring system being overly intrusive from the perspective of the patrons.
Yang discloses the claimed invention including the controller is configured to enter the service mode in response to detecting the presence of a location beacon on a service attendant in the washroom (Para. 35, enters service mode when user location detected which inherently includes in a washroom); a serving mode wherein the controller when in the service mode is configured to communicate with the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to cause the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to issue an indicator that it has a servicing need (Para. 33, 35 & 80, communicates to the user the servicing need of a particular dispenser and its location) except for expressly mentioning a light visual cue. However, Koester discloses the controller, when in the service mode, is configured to communicate with the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to cause the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to illuminate a sound, light on the at least one of the plurality of dispensers thus issue a visual cue indicating a servicing need (Col. 6, lines 38-48, speaker to speak or light denoting a visual cue of a service need), and the controller includes a light to shine on the at least one of the plurality of dispensers that has a servicing need (Col. 6, lines 38-48, light denoting a visual cue of a service need),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a speaker or a light denoting a visual cue for alerting of a service need as taught by Koester, since Koester states in column 6, lines 42-48 that such a modification directs the attention of target worker to the one or more hand hygiene dispenser(s) present in the room and remind the target worker of the need to engage in hand hygiene activities to be completed either upon room entry and/or prior to room exit depending on the nature of the occupation of the target worker.
Re: Claim 2, Yang discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of dispensers comprises at least one a soap dispenser, an air freshener dispenser, and a sanitizer dispenser (Para. 45, soap dispenser).
Re: Claim 3, Yang discloses the claimed invention including the controller is configured to enter the service mode in response to a verbal command (Para. 69, voice commands may be used to enable functionality and modes).
Re: Claim 5, Yang discloses the claimed invention including the controller is configured to enter the service mode in response to receipt of a communication from a wireless device initiated by a service attendant (Para. 36, the user accessing service mode via wireless device).
Re: Claim 7, Yang discloses the claimed invention including the controller, when in the service mode, is configured to send the servicing need and the identifier to a wireless device of a service attendant (Fig. 5, Para. 34 & 38, depicts the service needs being sent to user via a wireless device).
Re: Claim 12, the device of Yang in view of Koester as recited in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above is capable of performing the method of this claim.
Re: Claim 17, the device of Yang in view of Koester as recited in the rejection of claim 3 above is capable of performing the method of this claim command (Para. 69, voice commands may be used to enable functionality and modes with controller).
Re: Claim 18, Yang in view of Koester discloses separating the controller form the dispenser and placing in the same room (Koester: col. 5, lines 48-50)except for any particular location relative thereto including expressly placing the controller in the ceiling. However, the controller is located on the ceiling of the washroom. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to arrange the controller in the ceiling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re: Claim 19, Yang in view of Rexach, Rexach discloses the claimed invention including the controller comprises a light and the service mode comprises shining the light on the dispenser that needs servicing through accessing the preprogrammed map of the washroom (Rexach: Para. 12, 271, light source directing light onto appliance needing servicing ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a light for shining as taught by Rexach, since Rexach states in paragraph 271 that such a modification guides the user to the device or help illuminate the area near the device.
Re: Claim 20, Yang in view of Rexach as modified in claim 1 above the controller, when in the service mode, is configured to communicate with the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to cause the at least one of the plurality of dispensers to issue an audible cue indicting it has the servicing need (Rexach: 62/559,199: Para. 42, 71, 84-86,305 speaker for verbally speaking and receiving commands
Re: Claim 21, Yang discloses the claimed invention including re-entering the operation mode after a pre- determined period or in response to instructions from the service attendant (Para. 28, operation mode and service mode modules, and capable of reengaging service after a timer period).
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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights