REISSUE OFFICE ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This application is a reissue of US Patent 8,502,680 and also a divisional of 14/819,349 which published as RE48,951. US Patent 8,502,680 included original patent claims 1–20.
Applicant requested amendment of the claims on 4/6/2026. Claims 21–23, 32–35, 39 and 44–45 are pending.
Declaration and Reason for Reissue
This Reissue has been filed pursuant to the original patent being at least partly inoperative or invalid by reason of “other errors”, specifically:
“Claims 1-20 of the original patent did not claim a hand hygiene product dispenser associated with an area of concern (AOC) comprising an activation sensor” (11/28/2024 declaration p. 2).
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
It fails to identify a claim from the patent that is being broadened, as per MPEP 1414 II:
“For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.” The current error statement identifies claims 1–20 as claims to be narrowed.
This is a broadening reissue so either 1) the inventors must sign or 2) an assignee may sign if the application for original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee. See 37 CFR 1.46, MPEP 1412.03. Assignee Ecolab USA Inc. was not the applicant for the original 12/787,064 application.
35 USC § 251 Rejections
Claims 21–23, 32–35, 39 and 44–45 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Subject Matter Not Found In Cited Art
Claims 21–23, 32–35, 39 and 44–45 would be allowable if the claim objection and § 251 rejections asserted above were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art identified by the examiner is:
US 2008/0001763 (Raja)
US 6,236,317 (Cohen).
These references indeed together teach:
Evaluation of hand decontamination compliance in a medical care facility (Raja at Abstract).
Individual hand hygiene stations that bear unique identifiers (Raja 0005, Cohen 13:17–19).
Personnel tags have a unique personnel identifier (Raja 0005).
An actuation sensor for sensing presence and use of the hand hygiene station (Raja 0006).
Signaling to either the RFID tag 20 or to the central processor 40, or to both, that the person's status was now “clean” (Raja 0024).
Hygiene status of a user wearing the personnel tag is preferably stored on the personnel tag itself (Raja 0007).
Compliance rates for various personnel can be tracked. The tracking can be performed on the RFID tag 20 itself (Raja 0029).
Reports can be generated to summarize collected compliance actions (washings) and in particular that reports can include “each hand wash by location” (Cohen 7:12–25).
The number of actuations as monitored by the actuation sensor 46 can be counted (Raja at 0036).
Raja endeavors to measure current and past compliance for individual workers. To do so it captures and stores events including time-based events and creates historical reports reflecting periods of time. See Raja at 0007, 0010, 0011 and 0029–0030.
Base Station depicted in Raja's FIG. 1 (connected to Central Data Processor) represents a data gathering station that wirelessly receives event data stored in the RFID badges.
Cohen teaches downloading hygiene event data from a user badge to a data gathering station (Cohen at 6:30–34).
This art however fails to teach or suggest a system that includes1:
a data gathering station separate from the hand hygiene product dispenser, the data gathering station configured to:
broadcast an interrogation signal,
initiate receipt, from the compliance badge and in response to the interrogation signal, of a tag signal that includes identification information for the user and the dispense event data stored by the compliance badge when the compliance badge is within a download initiation zone of the data gathering station
continue receiving, from the compliance badge, the tag signal while the compliance badge is within a maximum download zone, and
terminate receipt, from the compliance badge, of the tag signal when the compliance badge leaves the maximum download zone.
Response To Arguments
Declaration
Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully reiterates that Ecolab USA Inc. is the assignee of both the present application as well as the original 12/787,064 application. Accordingly, in view of the common assignee ownership, Applicant believes that the "Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee" satisfies the requirements for the reissue declaration. Reconsideration is therefore respectfully requested” (4/6/2026 Remarks p. 6).
The declaration is defective. This is a broadening reissue. Not only does the declaration fail to identify a claim to be broadened, the assignee cannot sign the declaration for this broadening reissue application.
The original application (12/787,064) was filed (5/25/2010) by the inventors; the inventors were the applicant, not the assignee. The assignee did not file the original application under 37 CFR 1.46 (this only became possible under AIA which was not in effect at the time).
Assignment to an entity does not make the entity an applicant. MPEP 1412.03 V.A. states:
“Any reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012 must be applied for by all of the patentees. However, in a broadening reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the original reissue oath or declaration must be signed by all of the inventors, unless the application for the patent (for which reissue is requested) was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest (see 37 CFR 1.175(c)(2))”.
The filed PTO/AIA /06 form (REISSUE APPLICATION DECLARATION BY THE ASSIGNEE) states: “If the reissue is a broadening reissue, a claim that the application seeks to broaden must be identified and the box below must be checked”. “The box below” reads: “The application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest”. This box was not checked (nor should it be; the assignee did not file the original application under 37 CFR 1.46).
Notification of Proceedings and Material Information
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
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 extension fee 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 JEFFREY D CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6716. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, off 1st Fri.
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 Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. 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.
/JEFFREY D CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/C. Michelle Tarae/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 US Patent 8,502,680 FIGs 35 and 36 and 29:22–44 provides support for these claim limitations.
Prosecution Insights