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 § 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shell et al. (US 2021/0321829) in view of Thompson et al. (US 9,945,103).
Regarding claim 1, Shell et al. discloses a dispensing device comprising:
a pump (148) that discharges a liquid, a pipe (Paragraph 0038; see 136 in Fig. 9; see 152/151/160/144 in Fig. 11) through which the liquid discharged by the pump flows, a dispensing portion (102a; Fig. 8) that is connected to the pipe and dispenses the liquid that flows through the pipe (Paragraph 0027), a nozzle (102) that houses the pipe, the dispensing portion being arranged therein in an opening portion (Paragraph 0027), and
a sensor (140; Fig. 1) that detects an object to cause the liquid to be dispensed from the dispensing portion (via control module 142; Paragraphs 0045, 0059);
a casing (110) made of metal (Paragraph 0035) that houses the pump (Paragraph 0060), wherein the nozzle is attached to an exterior of the casing (Fig. 1).
Shell et al. does not disclose an antenna inside the nozzle communicating with an external information processing device, but notes that “other types of sensor technology may be used to provide touchless operation of the faucet 102”; Paragraph 0045). Shell et al. also fails to disclose that the nozzle is formed of a resin material. Shell et al. notes that the nozzle may be made of stainless steel, but also contemplates the use of other materials (Paragraph 0035).
Thompson et al. teach a dispensing device with a similar nozzle (110) and an antenna (as part of a data communications interface; Col. 21, lines 8-12) that is provided inside the nozzle (see data communications interface 133 in the embodiment of Fig. 10A; Col. 21, lines 45-50) and transmits and receives wireless signals (Col. 21, lines 51-60). Thompson et al. teach this configuration as a means for exchanging information with an external information processing device (see the Abstract; see mobile device 300 in Fig. 10A) including programming of features and collecting usage data (Col. 19, lines 39-62).
Thompson et al. further teach a nozzle that is formed of a resin material (the body is a molded plastic structure; Col. 6, lines 58-61). Thompson et al. teach that this integral construction can prevent contamination and buildup of bacteria (Col. 6, lines 61-66). Thompson et al. further teach that transparent resin materials are to be used on the nozzle to enable visual feedback from internal components such as LED lights, and to protect user interface components from damage and contaminants (Col. 10, lines 6-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of the dispensing device of Shell et al. with an antenna that transmits/receives wireless signals to/from an external information processing device, as taught by Thompson et al., in order to exchange information such as programming or usage data with a user. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying the techniques taught by Thompson et al. to the device of Shell et al. with predictable results, including improved capabilities with respect to remote monitoring (and programming of sensors, if so equipped).
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to construct the nozzle of the combined invention from a resin material, as taught by Thompson et al., in order to provide a molded structure that minimizes contamination and buildup of bacteria, as well as for enabling visual feedback and protection of user interface components that may be included in the nozzle. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that this material choice would be particularly suitable for transmission of wireless signals from the internal antenna, as it is well known in the art that metallic materials inhibit such signals (e.g., see Hayez et al., WO 2021/214322, Page 14, lines 27-31; and Mushtaq et al., US 2018/0326112, Paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 2, Shell et al.-Thompson et al. in combination disclose the dispensing device according to claim 1. Thompson et al. further teach that electrical components (see circuit boards 143, 144; Col. 12, lines 20-32; Fig. 4) in the nozzle are arranged along an extending direction of the pipe near the dispensing portion (e.g., control sensor 132; see Col. 8, lines 28-39; Fig. 4). Thompson et al. teach that a user interface containing these components is removable and configured to facilitate cleaning and repair/maintenance of the device (Col. 7, lines 7-22).
When modifying the nozzle of Shell et al., as described above regarding claim 1, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the antenna (along with other electrical components such as the sensor) of the combined invention along an extending direction of the pipe as part of a removable user interface, as taught by Thompson et al., in order to facilitate cleaning and repair/maintenance.
Regarding claim 4, Shell et al. further discloses that the pump discharges water from a tank housed in the casing (110 houses 128, 132; Paragraph 0038; Fig. 9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shell et al. in view of Thompson et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rutter et al. (US 2015/0157754).
Shell et al.-Thompson et al. in combination disclose the dispensing device according to claim 1, but do not disclose that the pump discharges a pharmaceutical agent.
Rutter et al. disclose a dispensing device (Fig. 1) comprising: a pump (116) that is capable of discharging water or a pharmaceutical agent (a fluid, e.g., a sanitizer or antimicrobial diluted with water; Paragraph 0016) from a tank (118; Fig. 1). Rutter et al. teach that the pharmaceutical agent is used for disinfecting the hands of a user (see the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Shell et al.-Thompson et al. with a pump that discharges a pharmaceutical agent from the tank housed in the casing, as taught by Rutter et al., in order to enable the device to more easily disinfect the hands of a user. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doing so may allow the device to be simplified (e.g., by potentially eliminating the need for soap and/or towel dispensers; see 104, 106 in Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Teague and claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Teague in view of Jacques et al., Applicant’s amendments dated 2/13/2026 reciting a sensor are sufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from Teague and the associated rejections have been withdrawn, as discussed during the interview of 1/21/2026.
Examiner notes that the Office Action dated 11/20/2025 rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 using Rutter et al. (disclosing a dispensing device) in view of Thompson et al. (disclosing a resin nozzle with an antenna) and Shell et al. (disclosing a dispensing device with a metal casing). In light of the discussion during the aforementioned interview and Applicant’s amendments incorporating the metal casing into claim 1, the amended claims have been rejected using Shell et al. as the primary reference.
With respect to the Shell et al. reference, Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the third paragraph of Page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues: “Shell provides a teaching that hinders (or teaches away from) the adoption of a resin nozzle. Shell explicitly recommends a "stainless steel" (metal) cabinet for durability, rigidity, and ease of cleaning (e.g., para [0025]). A skilled artisan following Shell's teaching would naturally select a metal nozzle (spout) as well, to maintain the same durability and hygienic properties as the cabinet. There is no motivation in Shell to make the nozzle out of a less durable resin material.”
Examiner agrees that Shell describes stainless steel components for durability and sanitization purposes, but it is noted that Shell also contemplates the use of other materials (“In other embodiments, the shroud 120 may be made of any other (different) suitable material (e.g., plastic, etc.)”, and “In other embodiments, the water station 100 may be constructed of plastic or any other suitable, and potentially more cost-effective, material”; Paragraphs 0034-0035). Thus, it cannot be said that Shell teaches away from the use of a resin nozzle, since Shell et al. teach that at least cost may provide a motivation to select such a material.
More importantly, as cited above in the rejection of claim 1, Thompson provides additional motivations for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the nozzle out of a resin material (i.e., to provide an integrally molded structure that minimizes contamination, and for transparency to allow visual feedback via internal lights). Thus, Examiner asserts that proper motivation has been shown for using a nozzle formed of a resin material in the device of Shell et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for several examples of dispensers having features relevant to the instant invention. In particular, Mushtaq et al. (US 2018/0326112) discloses a dispenser having a metal casing and teaches communication with an external device via an antenna housed under a plastic cover for improved reception and range (see Paragraph 0108).
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights