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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, the term “senor” should be replaced with the word --sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-11, 18, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,278,164), hereinafter “Green”.
With respect to Claim 1, Green, Figures 1-6, teaches a dispenser mounting system, comprising:
(a) a mounting component 50;
(b) a sensor 10,30,32 (leveling device senses the orientation of element 10); and
(c) a dispenser 100;
(d) wherein the mounting component 50 is directly attached to a wall;
(e) wherein the sensor 10,30,32 is directly attached to the wall; and
(f) wherein the dispenser is directly attached to the mounting component 50.
With respect to Claim 4, Green further teaches wherein the sensor 10,30,32 is located within a housing of the dispenser when the dispenser is attached to the mounting component.
With respect to Claim 5, Green further teaches wherein a back wall of a housing 114 of the dispenser defines an opening through which the sensor 10,30,32 is received when the dispenser is mounted to the mounting component.
With respect to Claim 6, Green further teaches wherein the sensor 10,30,32 is only partially received within the housing 114 of the dispenser when the dispenser is mounted to the mounting component.
With respect to Claim 7, Green further teaches wherein the mounting component 50 defines an opening through which the sensor 10,30,32 extends when the sensor 10,30,32 and the mounting component 50 are attached to the wall.
With respect to Claim 9, Green further teaches wherein the dispenser contains a roll of material (See Figure 3) for dispensing paper towels, and wherein the sensor 10,30,32 is located proximate the roll of material (See Figure 3).
With respect to Claim 10, Green further teaches wherein the sensor 10 is not directly connected to the dispenser. See Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to Claim 11, Green further teaches wherein the sensor 10 is attached only to the wall and is not attached to either the mounting component 50 or to the dispenser 100.
With respect to Claim 18, Green, Figures 1-6, teaches a dispenser mounting system, comprising:
(a) a mounting component 50;
(b) a sensor 10,30,32 (leveling device senses the orientation of element 10); and
(c) a dispenser 100;
(d) wherein the mounting component 50 is attached to a wall;
(e) wherein the sensor 10,30,32 is attached to the mounting component 50; and
(f) wherein the dispenser 100 is attached to the mounting component 50 with the sensor 10,30,32 extending through an opening in a housing 114 of the mounting component 50.
With respect to Claim 32, Green, Figures 1-6, teaches a dispenser mounting system, comprising:
(a) a dispenser 100; and
(b) means for attaching 10,30,32 (leveling device senses the orientation of element 10) the dispenser to a wall such that a sensor 10,30,32 that is independently mounted to the wall is located within the dispenser 100 proximate to a roll of material for dispensing paper towels contained within the dispenser when the dispenser is attached to the wall by said means.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0107632), hereinafter “Sinha” in view of Green et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,278,164), hereinafter “Green”.
With respect to Claim 1, Sinha, Figure 2, teaches a dispenser mounting system 240, comprising:
(b) a sensor 280; and
(c) a dispenser 240;
(e) wherein the sensor 280 is directly attached to the wall (See Figure 2).
Sinha teaches all the elements of the dispenser but it is unclear as to what specific structure is used to mount dispenser 240.
However, Green, Figures 1-6, teaches
(a) a mounting component 50;
(d) wherein the mounting component 50 is directly attached to a wall;
(f) wherein the dispenser is directly attached to the mounting component 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dispenser mounting system of Sinha with a mounting component, as taught by Green, for the purpose of securely fastening the dispenser to the wall.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green as applied to Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 18 and 32 above, and further in view of Miller et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,983,678), hereinafter “Miller”.
With respect to Claims 2 and 19, Green is advanced above.
Green further teaches the dispenser contains a roll of material for dispensing paper towels. See Figure 3.
Green teaches all the elements of the dispenser except for wherein the sensor is configured to detect a distance from the sensor to the roll of material whereby an amount of material to be dispensed may be calculated and/or an amount of material that has already been dispensed may be calculated.
However, Miller, Figures 1-16, Column 6, lines 64-67 and Column 7, lines 1-40, teaches a sensor is configured to detect a distance from the sensor to the roll of material whereby an amount of material to be dispensed may be calculated and/or an amount of material that has already been dispensed may be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sensor of Green with a sensor to detect a distance from the sensor to the roll of material, as taught by Miller, for the purpose of determining when the roll of material has been depleted.
With respect to Claim 3, Green is advanced above.
Green teaches all the elements of the dispenser except for wherein the sensor comprises a "time of flight" sensor for detecting a distance extending between the sensor and the roll of material.
However, Miller, Figures 1-16, Column 6, lines 64-67 and Column 7, lines 1-40, teaches a sensor comprising a "time of flight" sensor for detecting a distance extending between the sensor and the roll of material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Green with a sensor to detect a distance from the sensor to the roll of material, as taught by Miller, for the purpose of determining when the roll of material has been depleted.
With respect to Claim 8, Green in view of Miller are advanced above.
Green in view of Miller teach all the elements of the dispenser mounting system but it unclear whether the sensor extends approximately an inch from the wall and wherein the mounting component comprises a mounting plate that extends approximately 0.25 inches from the wall.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, to dimension the distances of the sensor and the mounting component of Green as specified in Claim 8 because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely experimented to determine the optimum dimensions for a particular use.
With respect to Claim 14, Green is advanced above.
Green teaches all the elements of the dispenser except for wherein the sensor comprises a wireless transmitter for communicating data from the sensor regarding a distance extending between the sensor and a roll of material contained within the dispenser for dispensing paper towels.
However, Miller, Figures 3A-3B and Column 4, lines 6-11, teaches a sensor comprises a wireless transmitter for communicating data from the sensor regarding a distance extending between the sensor and a roll of material contained within the dispenser for dispensing paper towels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sensor of Green with the sensor of Miller for the purpose of obtaining more information on the status of the dispenser.
With respect to Claim 15, Miller further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to communicate wirelessly via Bluetooth communications. See Column 6, lines 15-30.
With respect to Claim 16, Miller further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to communicate wirelessly via Wi-Fi communications. See Column 5, lines 29-52.
With respect to Claim 17, Miller further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to communicate wirelessly via cellular communications. See Column 5, lines 50-52.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green as applied to Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 18 and 32 above, and further in view of Martin (U.S. Patent No. 5,561,911).
With respect to Claim 12, Green is advanced above.
Green teaches all the elements of the dispenser except for wherein the sensor comprises a power source in the form of a battery 70 (See Column 2, lines 25-34 and Figure 5).
However, Martin teaches a sensor comprising a power source in the form of a battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sensor of Green with a battery operated sensor, as taught by Martin, because such would increase the accuracy of the sensor.
With respect to Claim 13, Green and Martin are advanced above.
Martin teaches the use of a battery 70 but it is silent whether the battery is a rechargeable battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sensor of Green with a rechargeable battery operated sensor, as taught by Martin, because such would increase the accuracy of the sensor.
However, rechargeable batteries are notoriously old and well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the battery with a rechargeable battery because such would eliminate the need to keep purchasing disposable batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Anna M. Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654