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 .
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species II (Figures 9A, 9B) in the replies filed on 8/4/25 and 12/19/25 is acknowledged. The Applicant contends claims 1-4 and 9-11 read on the elected Invention and Species, however, claim 4 does not read on the elected species (claim 4 defines the main housing as being movable along a frame member of the bed and the elected species defines a main housing integrated into the bed (see claim 9). Accordingly claims 1-3 and 9-11 will be examined herein with claims 4-8 and 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 1, reference character 42 should be 44 and reference character 40 should be 42 (see paragraph 0085, lines 7-10).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0086, line 9, “wearable dispenser assembly 20” should be “bed dispenser assembly 14”; and
In paragraph 0090, line 8, “wearable dispenser assembly 20” should be “bed dispenser assembly 14”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, on line 2, “its interior” should be “an interior of said container” to clarify which element the term “it” is referring.
In regard to claims 9 and 10, it is unclear as to whether or not the bed/frame member of the bed is intended to be part of the claimed combination, i.e., the language of claim 1 indicates the bed is not intended to be claimed, however, the language of claims 4, 9 and 10 seems to indicate the bed/frame member are intended to claimed. Should the Applicant intend to claim the bed/frame member, an antecedent basis should therefor be defined. Should the Applicant not intend to claim the bed/frame member, “adapted to be” / “for” language should be used when referring thereto. For purposes of examination, the bed/frame member will be considered part of the claimed combination.
In regard to claim 11, the limitation “the main housing includes a pair of nozzles located at opposite end of the part (of the bed)” is inaccurate in that, as seen in Figures 9A and 9B, the main housing 60 does not include a pair of nozzles 100 but rather the part 46 of the bed includes the pair of nozzles 100. Clarification is needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, an antecedent basis for “the remainder” (see line 4) has not been defined.
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 1-3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 2009/0236254, hereinafter Jenkins).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, the Jenkins reference discloses a bed dispenser assembly comprising:
a container B (see Figure 1) configured to contain hand sanitizer (see paragraph 0008) and a main housing 15 configured to be positioned on a bed (see paragraph 0013), the main housing comprising a cavity configured to receive the container.
Although the Jenkins reference does not disclose the particular structure of the dispensing mechanism of the bottle, the reference does disclose the bottle is a conventional pump bottle (see paragraph 0075). The examiner takes official notice that such conventional pump bottle dispensers include a stem in fluid communication with the interior of the container wherein the stem is actuatable relative to the container between open and closed positions such that the sanitizer is allowed to exit the container through an open end of the stem when the stem is in the open position and the sanitizer is prevented from exiting the container through the open end of the stem when the stem is in the closed position and a nozzle with a fluid discharge aperature in communication with the stem and coupled to the open end of the stem. Such arrangements are commonly used in conventional pump bottles in order to enable a user to conveniently and effectively dispense the sanitizer when needed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the pump bottle employed on the Jenkins device can include such a conventional stem and nozzle arrangement in order to enable a user to conveniently and effectively dispense the sanitizer when needed.
In regard to claim 3, the nozzle is considered “separate from” the stem.
In regard to claim 9, the main housing is considered to be “integrated” into the bed.
In regard to claim 10, although the main housing is secured to the bed via a clamp arrangement and not formed together with the bed as a single piece, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the main housing and part of the bed can be formed together as a single piece since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, rewritten to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Knighton and Morey et al. references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other bed dispenser assemblies comprised of container of hand sanitizer and a main housing positioned on a bed and including a cavity configured to receive the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
1/12/25
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754