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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-28 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “A liquid dispenser configured to be mounted to and supported by a wall”, claim 8 recites “A cover for a wall mounted cooling system” and “the wall mounted cooling system is configured to be mounted and supported by a wall”, and claim 17 recites “a cooling system, configured to mounted to and supported by a wall”.
The description is silent to the discussion or support for the liquid dispenser and/or the cooling system mounted to and supported by a wall. There is clearly no structure present in the previous claims, the specification. Even the drawings only show the structure of the liquid dispenser in figures 1 and 2 without any detailed wall mounting or any structure that supports wall mounting. Such disclosure does not teach a person of ordinary skill in the art that such dispensers are mounted on the wall and supported by a wall. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 15, 18-19, 21-23, and 25-28 are rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawyer (US PG PUB 2014/0379148).
Regarding claims 1, Sawyer teaches a liquid dispenser station (item 110, figure 2) configured to be mounted to and supported by a wall (mounted to wall, paragraph [0024]), comprising:
a liquid dispenser (item 112, figure 2) fixed in a first position and configured to dispense liquid from said first position (paragraph [0022]);
a sensor (item 116, figure 2) for detecting a liquid container (bottle, paragraph [0022], [0046]);
a lower container (see annotated figure 1 below) comprising three side faces (bottom container shows a front face, a side face and unseen face non shown in figure, see annotated figure 1 below);
a panel (see annotated figure 1 below) comprising one or more vents configured to allow access to an internal volume of the lower container (the vents inherently allow a user to view inside the lower container and thus providing some access to the inside of the container).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 2 of Sawyer
Regarding claim 3, Sawyer discloses that the side face being substantially trapezoidal wherein only a top edge and a bottom edge of the side face are approximately parallel with one another (see annotated figure 1 above).
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 18, Sawyer discloses a cover (cover of housing 102 as shown in figures 1 and 2) for a wall mounted cooling system (cooling system and other components are in the housing, paragraphs [0021], [0022], [0024]) comprising:
a container (item 102, figures 1 and 2) comprising three faces including a side face (bottom container shows a front face, a side face and unseen face non shown in figure, see annotated figure 1 above); and
a panel comprising one or more vents (see annotated figure 1 above) and configured to engage with disposed in the side face of the container and allow access to one or more components of the cooling system (the vents inherently allow a user to view inside the lower container and thus providing some access to the inside of the container);
wherein the wall mounted cooling system is configured to be mounted to and supported by a wall and is engaging with a liquid dispenser (item 112, figure 2) first in a first position (figure 2) above the cooling system to dispense liquid when a sensor (item 116, figure 2) detects the presence of a liquid container (paragraphs [0022], [0024], [0046]).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Sawyer discloses that the container comprises a front face and two side faces, the two side faces being trapezoidal such that only two edges of each of the two side faces are approximately parallel to one another (see annotated figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Sawyer discloses that the one or more components comprise a filter and a power supply, and the panel is sized to allow for removal of the filter from the container (paragraphs [0022-0024]).
Regarding claim 28, Sawyer discloses that the top edge of the side face has a length greater than the bottom edge of the side face (see annotated figure 1 above).
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 5-7, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer in view of Fantappie et al. (“Fantappie” hereinafter) (US 2022/0024748).
Regarding claims 5-7, 12, and 19, Sawyer teaches that that the panel is trapezoidal (figure 2) but does not explicitly teach that the panel having at least one opening for removing and replacing the panel from the lower container; and wherein the at least one opening is a key hole.
Fantappie teaches a liquid dispenser station 1 comprising: a liquid dispenser configured to dispense liquid (figure 1, paragraphs [0031], [0034]; and a panel (items 107, 108, 109, figure 3 and 4, paragraph [0035]) configured to allow access to an internal volume of the liquid dispenser station, wherein the panel includes at least one opening for receiving a key, allowing for the panel to be locked in the closed position (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of Sawyer as taught by Fantappie to have at least one opening; and wherein the at least one opening is a key hole, in order to provide means for allowing the panel to be locked in the closed position (i.e. preventing accidental opening or unwanted removal).
Claims 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer in view of Gatipon (US PG PUB 2015/0097001).
Regarding claims 21-23, Sawyer teaches a pan (basin 104 and inlet for bottle as seen in annotated figure 1 above) in a second position above the lower container (figure 2) and below the liquid dispenser (figure 2) in the first position (paragraphs [0022-0024]) but is silent to the pan having a plurality of protrusions to support the liquid container.
Gatipon teaches a pan (drain pan) positioned above the lower container (on top of the cart) and below the liquid dispenser (paragraph [0024]); wherein the pan (drain pan) includes a plurality of protrusions (rails) to support the liquid container (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sawyer as taught by Gatipon to provide a plurality of rails in the drain pan in order to support a liquid container. Doing so is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art and can be easily attained by a simple modification of the drain pan assembly.
Regarding claim 25, Sawyer teaches that the pan protrudes outwardly away from the wall (see annotated figure 1 above), past the front face of the lower container (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Sawyer teaches that the sensor is directed away from the wall (item 116, figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 with regards to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant, once again argued, in light of independent claims 1, 8, and 17, that the 112(a) rejection for failing to comply with the written description requirement is improper. Applicant asserted that when reviewing the drawings, the claims, and the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the dispenser/cooling system is configured to be mounted and supported by the wall and thus showing that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant further contended that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the liquid dispenser of the instant invention cannot be installed free-standing and it would only install it and support it on a wall and therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn since the drawings purportedly show a wall mounted configuration.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that, the recitations regarding the “wall-mounting” of the liquid dispenser and the cooling system were not present in the original claims nor the specification at the time of filing or even the next two rounds of prosecution. Furthermore, there is nothing in the drawings that suggests that the dispenser and/or the cooling systems are wall-mounted. There are only two figures (1 and 2) which even show the dispenser and there is no wall present or any other structure that would aid one of ordinary skill in the art to mount such dispenser to a wall. Applicant is assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would mount such dispensers/cooling systems on the wall. However, a clear showing of such is not present. Assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would mount the dispenser on wall because it is not being capable of free-standing is not sufficient to overcome lack of explicit disclosure in the specification and/or the drawings. Therefore, the 112(a) rejections are proper and the claims remain rejected accordingly.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-28 under Lynch, Gatipon, and Fantappie are considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections do not rely on the same combination of references and/or the interpretation of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection.
The amendments of independent claims 1, 8, and 17 required further search and consideration which resulted in a new grounds of rejection under Sawyer. Prior art Sawyer teaches substantially all of the limitations of the independent claims including vent panels on a lower container that comprises multiple side faces in trapezoidal shapes. Furthermore, Sawyer also teaches all of the subject matter of dependent claims 3, 9, 13, 15, 18, and 28. Dependent claims 5-7, 12, and 19 are rendered obvious under the combination of Sawyer and Fantappie and dependent claims 21-23 and 25-27 are rendered obvious over the combination of Sawyer and Gatipon as discussed in detail above. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-28 remain rejected as discussed in detail above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754