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 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s newly added features do not overcome the prior art. The button of Rocca is configured to slide which is shown precisely in the figures, meaning applicant’s primary argument of no slide is not persuasive as it is incorrect.
Regarding claim 8, the specification says a spring and an O-Ring; the claim states a spring or an O-ring. This is not consistent and thus the claim is not supported. As there is no further mention of these in the claims or drawing, it is impossible to further interpret it otherwise.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring and O-ring must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 8, the specification says a spring and an O-Ring; the claim states a spring or an O-ring. This is not consistent and thus the claim is not supported.
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.
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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saladino in view of Rocca (US 2017/0173616).
Regarding claim 1, Saladino discloses a solution dispenser comprising
a magnetic for attachment to a mobile device; [0075-0076, the case and the modules including the solution dispenser are magnetic for attachment to the phone; 0046-0048 also discloses that an adhesive may be used alternatively]
a card holder located between a mobile device surface and a solution dispenser pod, [Case 578 incorporates the card holder/wallet and is located between the dispenser and the phone, see at least figures 16]
and wherein the solution dispenser pod comprises an enclosed pod containing a solution that is a liquid or gel [Fig 16 the bottle and card are affixed between bottom and top flat portions, bottle 586 defines the enclosed pod]
and an outlet port for dispensing the solution from the solution dispenser pod. [Fig. 16, 0068]
as well as attachment prongs [0075]
But does not expressly disclose corner attachment to a hole, or a lever.
Rocca discloses an analogous dispenser attachment system wherein the solution dispenser pod comprises four prongs at each corner configured to snap into corresponding four holes located at each corner of the card holder for securing the solution dispenser pod to the card holder, [0011, 0022]
as well as a spray lever [0048] which is a slide, see figs 9 and 10 which show 3a sliding downward in a straight manner to actuate the spray, which is then indented relative the housing and could be gripped by a hand, and a pressure point is necessarily present as it is activated by pushing. [0056]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a indented sliding lever with a pressure point to have a controlled way to dispense the fluid as needed, and to connect at each corner as this is a notoriously well-known way to attached two things with four corners as it provides even pressure and prevents bending and damage at the corners.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the solution dispenser of claim 1, wherein the solution is hand sanitizer. [Both references disclose sanitizer dispensers, see Saladino in the TITLE, FIELD OF INVENTION and at least paragraph 0009, as well as throughout the entire document and figures; Further Rocca discloses dispensing of hand sanitizer, in 0033 and 0035] [Also this is not limiting as any liquid or gel would include sanitizer, and using sanitizer as opposed to any other liquid or gel would not change the structure of the invention]
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the solution dispenser of claim 1, wherein the solution dispenser pod comprises a writing or logo. [printed matter which does not change the function or structure is not limiting and may be disregarded]
2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-10.2019]
III. PRODUCT CLAIMS – NONFUNCTIONAL PRINTED MATTER DOES NOT DISTINGUISH CLAIMED PRODUCT FROM OTHERWISE IDENTICAL PRIOR ART PRODUCT
Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed, explaining "[i]f we were to adopt [applicant’s] position, anyone could continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product."). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ( "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." ); In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding a new and nonobvious relationship between a measuring cup and writing showing how to "half" a recipe); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art); In re Xiao, 462 Fed. App'x 947, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (affirming an obviousness rejection of claims directed to a tumbler lock that used letters instead of numbers and had a wild-card label instead of one of the letters); In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (non-precedential) (printed matter on game cards bears no new and nonobvious functional relationship to game board).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The court has extended the rationale in the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, to method claims in which "an instruction limitation" (i.e., a limitation "informing" someone about the existence of an inherent property of that method) is added to a method known in the art. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (2010). Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, for such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. In King Pharma, the court found that the relevant determination is whether the "instruction limitation" has a "new and unobvious functional relationship" with the known method of administering the drug with food. Id. The court held that the relationship was non-functional because "[i]nforming a patient about the benefits of a drug in no way transforms the process of taking the drug with food." Id. That is, the actual method of taking a drug with food is the same regardless of whether the patient is informed of the benefits. Id. "In other words, the ‘informing’ limitation ‘in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the ‘informing’ limitation.’" Id. (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the solution dispenser of claim 1, wherein the solution dispenser pod is removably attached to the card holder. [Saladino, Fig. 16]
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saladino in view of Rocca (US 2017/0173616) further in view of Ophardt (0212/0256741 A1)
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the solution dispenser of claim 1, and while it is implicit if not inherent that there is a spring in the slide of Rocca, it is not expressly stated that a spring is releasing the fluid. Ophardt discloses an analogous device wherein the slide is configured for opening and closing the outlet port with a spring or an O-ring. [0077] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a spring to bias a slide so that it may properly return to its normal position for reuse.
Conclusion
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 LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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.
/LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699