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
Rejection of Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 14 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steltenkamp (US 2022/0091001) has been modified in light of applicant’s amendments.
Rejection of Claim(s) 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steltenkamp has been modified in light of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 7, 9, 14, 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steltenkamp (US 2022/0091001).
Regarding claim 1, Steltenkamp teaches a hand cleaning fluid dispenser comprising at least one fluid outlet (16) for dispensing a fluid onto an object/hand (28); a fluid collector (40) for collecting at least some of the fluid after the fluid has contacted the object (40); and a fluid analyzer (68) for analyzing at least some of the fluid collected by the fluid collector; wherein the fluid dispenser (10) has at least one feature that is selected to cause at least some of the fluid that contacts the object to fall into the fluid collector (40); (Refer to Figure 2) and wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one of: a location (refer to Figure 2) of the at least one fluid outlet (16); a guide element, applicants specification describes “a guide element being a chamber for receiving the users hand [030]” or “other structures could be used to guide the orientation of the user's hands 56, instead of or in addition to the shape of the chamber 56. For example, the fluid dispenser 10 could have a fluid dispensing member 48 similar to that shown in FIG. 3, or another obstacle, which may be moveable or immoveable, which restricts or guides the user's hands 56 to a preferred orientation that guides an orientation of the object [0152]”, therefore, Steltenkamp teaches an area/chamber equivalent to applicants guide element (refer to figure 2) above the dip tray (40) that guides the users hand or the orientation of the object in order to receive the dispensed liquid; and a dispensing sequence that includes at least two temporally distinct dispensing events. Applicants further recite “wherein the guide element guides a user's hand into an angled position for receiving the fluid dispensed from the at least one fluid outlet”, Steltenkamp teaches a dip tray (40) and the area above the dip tray is where the users hand is placed it is inherent if the users decides to get rid of any of the excess fluid during dispensing on its hand the user would simply “angle” there hands into an “angled position” from an upwards facing horizontal position. It also reminded that the limitation “when the user's hand is in the angled position, a palm of the user's hand is angled away from an upwards facing horizontal position” is considered a process and/or intended use limitation, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus (i.e. from apparatus claim 1) from that of the prior art. Since claim 1, etc. are drawn to an apparatus statutory class of invention, it is the structural limitations of the apparatus, as recited in the claims, which are considered in determining the patentability of the apparatus itself. This recited process or intended use limitation is accorded no patentable weight to an apparatus. Process limitations are not germane to patentablility to a structure, which is not distinguished from the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The users hands in Steltenkamp are capable of angling away from an upwards facing horizontal position.
Regarding claim 2, the fluid dispenser comprises a hand cleaning fluid dispenser and the fluid comprises a hand cleaning fluid. (Refer to paragraph [0014])
Regarding claim 7, the guide element comprises a chamber (inner section where the hand is placed in Figure 2 the hand is restricted such that the hand cannot go any further than the number 14) for receiving the user's hand, the chamber having a shape that is selected to restrict the orientation of the user's hand when received by the chamber.
Regarding claim 9, the at least one fluid outlet (16) comprises a fluid outlet that is located diagonally above, to a side, diagonally below, or below the object/hand (28). (Refer to Figure 2)
Regarding claim 14, at least one of a flow rate of the fluid (pump mechanism 16); a volume of the fluid; a viscosity of the fluid; a pressure of the fluid; a spray pattern of the fluid; a pulsing of the fluid; and a turbulence of the fluid is selected so that at least some of the fluid that contacts the object falls into the fluid collector.
Regarding claim 18, the at least one feature comprises the dispensing sequence that includes the at least two temporally distinct dispensing events; wherein the dispensing sequence comprises a first dispensing event, in which a first fluid is dispensed onto the object, and a second dispensing event, in which a second fluid is dispensed onto the object; wherein the fluid collected by the fluid collector comprises at least one of the first fluid and the second fluid; wherein the first dispensing event is, at least in part, for delivering a hand cleaning product to the user's hand; and wherein the second dispensing event is, at least in part, for collecting a sample of material from the user's hand for analysis by the fluid analyzer. (infection testing mode and hand sanitizing mode) (Refer to paragraphs [0059-0062] and [00247])
Regarding claim 19, the fluid analyzer is configured to detect biological particles collected from the object (hand); wherein the fluid dispenser is configured to be operated touchlessly; and wherein the second fluid is selected to at least one of: rinse the first fluid off of the user's hand; moisturize the user's hand; protect the user's hand; clean the user's hand; and dry the user's hand. (Refer to paragraph [0006]) (Refer to paragraph [0246])
Regarding claim 20, the at least one feature comprises at least three features, and wherein the at least three features comprise the location of the at least one fluid outlet (18); the guide element (42) that guides the orientation of the object; and the dispensing sequence that includes the at least two temporally distinct dispensing events (infection testing mode and hand sanitizing mode).
Regarding claim 22, the fluid dispenser comprises a hand cleaning fluid dispenser and the fluid comprises a hand cleaning fluid. [0014]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10, 16 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steltenkamp.
Refer above for the teachings of Steltenkamp.
Steltenkamp fails to teach the at least one fluid outlet comprises at least two fluid outlets that are positioned at different locations relative to the object. Steltenkamp fails to teach the two fluid outlets are positioned at different locations relative to the object.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an additional fluid outlet positioned at a different location from the first fluid outlet in order to ensure the hand is covered with the fluid for analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 ,15 and 24-26 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Steltenkamp teaches an indicator light that ligupts up to provide indication or a user’s infection status and thus there is no suggestion in Steltenkamp that the indicator light would not guide a user’s hand to an angled position. It is unclear as what the applicants argument is as examiner has not alleged that the indicator light would guide the users hand to an angled position, as stated in the rejection above that the users hands of Steltenkamp teaches a dip tray (40) and the area above the dip tray is where the users hand is placed it is inherent if the users decides to get rid of any of the excess fluid during dispensing on its hand the user would simply “angle” their hands into an “angled position” from an upwards facing horizontal position. It also reminded that the limitation “when the user's hand is in the angled position, a palm of the user's hand is angled away from an upwards facing horizontal position” is considered a process and/or intended use limitation, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus (i.e. from apparatus claim 1) from that of the prior art. Applicants further argue that Steltenkamp does not teach a fluid outlet that is located diagonally above, to a side, diagonally below, or below the object/hand. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the users hands are angled then it is inherent that the fluid outlet is located diagonally above the object/hand, relative to the angled hand, the axis from the hand to the outlet may have both an located diagonally above the hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights