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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03 December 2025, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-3, 8-9, 13, 15-18, and 20-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see pages 7-8, that Brookes fails to disclose a textured hand support surface configured to provide support to a user and prevent slipping of user’s hand when the user rests the user’s hand on the textured hand support surface, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Brookes teaches the structural limitations of the touch surface, i.e., a touch surface (FIG. 3, element 19) opposite to a mounting surface (FIG. 3, element 14), wherein the touch surface comprises a textured hand support surface, the textured hand support surface extending across an entire area of the touch surface (CollinsDictionary.com defines “textured” as “having a surface of the specified kind”; the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes no limitations requiring a specific texture; therefore, the touch surface 19 of Brookes meets the limitation of “a textured hand support surface”). Brookes fails to teach that the touch surface comprises a handprint; however, Zhang teaches a touch surface comprising a handprint (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below). Therefore, the structural limitations of the touch surface/textured hand support surface are all met.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookes (U.S. Patent No. 4,710,634 A), hereinafter Brookes, in view of Zhang et al. (CN Patent No. 110522936 A), hereinafter Zhang (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 1, Brookes discloses an apparatus comprising:
a mounting surface (FIG. 3, element 14) configured to be disposed on a structure (FIG. 3, element 11);
a touch surface (FIG. 1, element 19) opposite to the mounting surface (FIG. 3: touch surface 19 is on the left side of the apparatus, while mounting surface 14 is on the right, i.e., opposite side), wherein:
the touch surface comprises a textured hand support surface (CollinsDictionary.com defines “textured” as “having a surface of the specified kind”; the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes no limitations requiring a specific texture; therefore, the touch surface 19 of Brookes meets the limitation of “a textured hand support surface”) configured to provide support to a user (column 2, lines 50-55; touch surface 19 is a push plate, i.e., is a hand support surface for pushing a surface) and prevent slipping of user’s hand when the user rests the user’s hand on the textured hand support surface, wherein the textured hand support surface extends across an entire area of the touch surface (FIG. 1: the hand support surface 19 extends across the entire surface of the touch surface 19); and
a cleansing mechanism configured to clean the touch surface, wherein the cleansing mechanism comprises a disinfectant light mechanism configured to disinfect the touch surface using ultraviolet light (column 1, lines 60-68).
Brookes fails to disclose that the touch surface comprises a handprint.
However, Zhang discloses a touch surface comprising a handprint (page 6, paragraph 2, lines 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes to include that the touch surface comprises a handprint, based on the teachings of Zhang that the handprint provides a convenient guide for ensuring full sterilization (Zhang, page 6, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 8, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the cleansing mechanism further comprises at least one of: a pressure sensor and a proximity sensor (page 6, second paragraph, lines 20-21), and wherein the disinfectant mechanism is configured to:
obtain inputs from the pressure sensor or the proximity sensor (page 6, second paragraph, lines 20-22); and
disinfect the touch surface based on the inputs (page 6, second paragraph, lines 20-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include that the cleansing mechanism further comprises at least one of: a pressure sensor and a proximity sensor, and wherein the disinfectant light mechanism is configured to: obtain inputs from the pressure sensor or the proximity sensor; and disinfect the touch surface based on the inputs, based on the additional teachings of Zhang that this automates the disinfection process for easier use and less resource consumption (Zhang, page 2, ‘summary of the invention’ first paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the structure comprises a wall (page 6, paragraph 2, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include that the structure comprises a wall, based on the additional teachings of Zhang that mounting the apparatus on the wall enhances the convenience of its installation and use (Zhang, page 6, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 16, Brookes discloses an apparatus comprising:
a mounting surface (FIG. 3, element 14) configured to be disposed on a structure (FIG. 3, element 11);
a touch surface (FIG. 1, element 19) opposite to the mounting surface (FIG. 3: touch surface 19 is on the left side of the apparatus, while mounting surface 14 is on the right, i.e., opposite side), wherein:
the touch surface comprises a textured hand support surface (CollinsDictionary.com defines “textured” as “having a surface of the specified kind”; the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes no limitations requiring a specific texture; therefore, the touch surface 19 of Brookes meets the limitation of “a textured hand support surface”) configured to provide support to a user (column 2, lines 50-55; touch surface 19 is a push plate, i.e., is a hand support surface for pushing a surface) and prevent slipping of user’s hand when the user rests the user’s hand on the textured hand support surface, wherein the textured hand support surface extends across an entire area of the touch surface (FIG. 1: the hand support surface 19 extends across the entire surface of the touch surface 19); and
a cleansing mechanism configured to clean the touch surface, wherein the cleansing mechanism comprises a disinfectant light mechanism configured to disinfect the touch surface using ultraviolet light (column 1, lines 60-68).
Brookes fails to disclose that the touch surface comprises a handprint, and the cleansing mechanism further comprises at least one of: a pressure sensor and a proximity sensor.
However, Zhang discloses that the touch surface comprises a handprint (page 6, paragraph 2, lines 8-9), and
the cleansing mechanism comprises at least one of: a pressure sensor and a proximity sensor (page 6, second paragraph, lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes to include that the touch surface comprises a handprint, and the cleansing mechanism further comprises at least one of: a pressure sensor and a proximity sensor, based on the teachings of Zhang that the handprint provides a convenient guide for ensuring full sterilization (Zhang, page 6, paragraph 2), and the sensor automates the disinfection process for easier use and less resource consumption (Zhang, page 2, ‘summary of the invention’ first paragraph).
Claims 2-3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookes in view of Zhang as respectively applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Herron, JR. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0006678 A1), hereinafter Herron, JR.
Regarding claim 2, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Brookes in view of Zhang fails to disclose an antibacterial or antiviral coating configured to mitigate bacterial and viral content, wherein the antibacterial or antiviral coating is disposed on the touch surface.
However, Herron, JR. discloses an antibacterial or antiviral coating (paragraph 0051, lines 1-3) configured to mitigate bacterial and viral content (paragraph 0053, lines 1-3), wherein the antibacterial or antiviral coating is disposed on the touch surface (paragraph 0053, lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include an antibacterial or antiviral coating configured to mitigate bacterial and viral content, wherein the antibacterial or antiviral coating is disposed on the touch surface, based on the teachings of Herron, JR. that this coating advantageously prevents the spread of microbes between people who come into contact with the touch surface (Herron, JR., paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 3, Brookes in view of Zhang and Herron, JR. as applied to claim 2 discloses the apparatus of claim 2.
In addition, Herron, JR. discloses that the antibacterial or antiviral coating comprises a copper impregnated coating (paragraph 0056, lines 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang and Herron, JR. to include that the antibacterial or antiviral coating comprises a copper impregnated coating, based on the additional teachings of Herron, JR. that a copper impregnated coating is beneficial due to its durability and long-lasting antimicrobial capabilities (Herron, JR., paragraph 0056, lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 17, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 16 discloses the apparatus of claim 16.
Brookes in view of Zhang fails to disclose an antibacterial or antiviral coating configured to mitigate bacterial and viral content, wherein the antibacterial or antiviral coating is disposed on the touch surface.
However, Herron, JR. discloses an antibacterial or antiviral coating (paragraph 0051, lines 1-3) configured to mitigate bacterial and viral content (paragraph 0053, lines 1-3), wherein the antibacterial or antiviral coating is disposed on the touch surface (paragraph 0053, lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include an antibacterial or antiviral coating configured to mitigate bacterial and viral content, wherein the antibacterial or antiviral coating is disposed on the touch surface, based on the teachings of Herron, JR. that this coating advantageously prevents the spread of microbes between people who come into contact with the touch surface (Herron, JR., paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 18, Brookes in view of Zhang and Herron, JR. as applied to claim 17 discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
In addition, Herron, JR. discloses that the antibacterial or antiviral coating comprises a copper impregnated coating (paragraph 0056, lines 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang and Herron, JR. to include that the antibacterial or antiviral coating comprises a copper impregnated coating, based on the additional teachings of Herron, JR. that a copper impregnated coating is beneficial due to its durability and long-lasting antimicrobial capabilities (Herron, JR., paragraph 0056, lines 42-44).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookes in view of Zhang as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Lesic (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0128997 A1), hereinafter Lesic.
Regarding claim 9, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Brookes in view of Zhang fails to disclose that the cleansing mechanism comprises a dispenser disposed adjacent to the touch surface, wherein the dispenser comprises cleansing wipes for cleaning the touch surface.
However, Lesic discloses that the cleaning mechanism comprises a dispenser disposed adjacent to the touch surface (FIG. 1B: the dispenser 7 is located adjacent touch surface 3), wherein the dispenser (FIG. 1B, element 7) comprises cleansing wipes (paragraph 0087, lines 4-7) for cleaning the touch surface (paragraph 0089, lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include that the cleaning mechanism comprises a dispenser disposed adjacent to the touch surface, wherein the dispenser comprises cleansing wipes for cleaning the touch surface, based on the teachings of Lesic that this is a conveniently accessible way to provide disinfection and prevent the spread of bacteria (Lesic, paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 15, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 13 discloses the apparatus of claim 13.
Brookes in view of Zhang fails to disclose that the apparatus is mounted on the wall using fasteners.
However, Lesic discloses that the apparatus is mounted on the wall using fasteners (paragraph 0089, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include that the apparatus is mounted on the wall using fasteners, based on the teachings of Lesic that this is a conveniently accessible way to provide disinfection and prevent the spread of bacteria (Lesic, paragraph 0089).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookes in view of Zhang and Kennedy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0339075 A1), hereinafter Kennedy.
Regarding claim 20, Brookes discloses an apparatus comprising:
a mounting surface (FIG. 3, element 14) configured to be disposed on a structure (FIG. 3, element 11);
a touch surface (FIG. 1, element 19) opposite to the mounting surface (FIG. 3: touch surface 19 is on the left side of the apparatus, while mounting surface 14 is on the right, i.e., opposite side), wherein:
the touch surface comprises a textured hand support surface (CollinsDictionary.com defines “textured” as “having a surface of the specified kind”; the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes no limitations requiring a specific texture; therefore, the touch surface 19 of Brookes meets the limitation of “a textured hand support surface”) configured to provide support to a user (column 2, lines 50-55; touch surface 19 is a push plate, i.e., is a hand support surface for pushing a surface) and prevent slipping of user’s hand when the user rests the user’s hand on the textured hand support surface, wherein the textured hand support surface extends across an entire area of the touch surface (FIG. 1: the hand support surface 19 extends across the entire surface of the touch surface 19); and
a cleansing mechanism configured to clean the touch surface, wherein the cleansing mechanism comprises a disinfectant light mechanism configured to disinfect the touch surface using ultraviolet light (column 1, lines 60-68).
Brookes fails to disclose that the touch surface comprises a handprint; and the disinfectant light mechanism is configured to obtain inputs from a pressure sensor, and disinfect the touch surface based on the inputs.
However, Zhang discloses that the touch surface comprises a handprint (page 6, paragraph 2, lines 8-9); and
the disinfectant mechanism is configured to obtain inputs from a sensor (page 6, second paragraph, lines 20-22), and disinfect the touch surface based on the inputs (page 6, second paragraph, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes to include that the touch surface comprises a handprint; and the disinfectant light mechanism is configured to obtain inputs from a pressure sensor, and disinfect the touch surface based on the inputs, based on the teachings of Zhang that the handprint provides a convenient guide for ensuring full sterilization (Zhang, page 6, paragraph 2), and that the sensor automates the disinfection process for easier use and less resource consumption (Zhang, page 2, ‘summary of the invention’ first paragraph).
Brookes in view of Zhang fails to disclose that the sensor is a pressure sensor.
However, Kennedy discloses that the disinfectant light mechanism is configured to obtain inputs from a pressure sensor, and disinfect the touch surface based on the inputs (paragraphs 0066-0067).
The disclosure of Kennedy demonstrates that the function of pressure sensors is known in the art of UV sterilization. Kennedy also shows that substituting a pressure sensor for a different sensor in a UV sterilization system yields the predictable result of enabling a determination of whether the disinfection mechanism should be switched on at a particular moment (Kennedy, paragraphs 0066-0067). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include a pressure sensor because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ritz (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0151012 A1), hereinafter Ritz.
Regarding claim 21, Brookes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Brookes in view of Zhang fails to disclose that the touch surface comprises a hand shaped cavity in which the handprint is formed.
However, Ritz discloses that the touch surface comprises a hand shaped cavity in which the handprint is formed (FIG. 1, cavity 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brookes in view of Zhang to include that the touch surface comprises a hand shaped cavity in which the handprint is formed, based on the teachings of Ritz that this ensures the entire hand is disinfected, including the areas between fingers (Ritz, paragraph 0037).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou (CN Patent No. 112982855 A), hereinafter Zhou (English machine translation provided), teaches a touch surface comprising a textured hand support surface configured to provide support to a user and prevent slipping of user’s hand when the user rests the user’s hand on the textured hand support surface, wherein the textured hand support surface extends across an entire area of the touch surface; and a cleansing mechanism configured to clean the touch surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights