Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/539,768

AUTOMATIC TOILET PAPER DISPENSER

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
948 granted / 1271 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1301
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1271 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 is vague and indefinite. Note that Claim 3 includes a preamble but there is nothing set forth after the term “comprising”. It appears that this claim should have been canceled as the limitations from Claim 3 were incorporated into independent Claim 1. 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) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denen et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0109036), hereinafter “Denen”, in view of McIntosh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0121137) and Murphy (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0206138). With respect to Claim 1, Denen, Figures 1-8A, teaches an automatic toilet paper dispenser, comprising: a wall mounted container 20, comprising: a container body 22,24 disposed on at least a portion of an external surface to store a roll 66,68 therein, and a dispensing aperture 62 disposed on at least a portion of the container body 24 to facilitate extraction of at least one sheet of the roll 66,68 therefrom; a motion sensor (See Paragraph [0064], lines 5-7) disposed on at least a portion of the container body to detect movement by a user within a predetermined proximity; and a motor 56 disposed within at least a portion of the container body to automatically extract the at least one sheet of the roll of toilet paper through the dispensing aperture in response to the motion sensor detecting movement by the user; and a control unit 54 disposed within at least a portion of the container body, wherein the control unit controls a number of sheets dispensed by the motor through the dispensing aperture in response to the motion sensor detecting movement. Denen is silent as to the roll being dispensed being a roll of toilet paper. However, in the abstract Denen teaches the apparatus for dispensing paper from rolls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any paper in the form of roll, including a toilet paper roll, could be dispensed from the dispenser of Denen. Denen teaches all the elements of the dispenser except for a plurality of status lights disposed on the container body, the plurality of status lights comprising: a first status light configured to illuminate a first color in response to the control unit detecting the roll of toilet paper needs to be replaced or the container body is at an empty volume level, a second status light configured to illuminate a second color in response to the control unit detecting the roll of toilet paper is running low or the container body is at a low volume level, and a third status light configured to illuminate a third color in response to the control unit detecting the roll of toilet paper is new or the container body is at a full volume level. However, McIntosh, Figures 1-9 and Paragraph [0033], lines 14-21, teaches a plurality of status lights 64 disposed on the container body, the plurality of status lights comprising: a first status light (left light in Panel 64 – See Figure 3) configured to illuminate a first color in response to the control unit detecting the roll of toilet paper needs to be replaced or the container body is at an empty volume level, a second status light (middle light in Panel 64 – See Figure 3)configured to illuminate a second color in response to the control unit detecting the roll of toilet paper is running low or the container body is at a low volume level, and a third status light (right light in Panel 64 – See Figure 3) configured to illuminate a third color in response to the control unit detecting the roll of toilet paper is new or the container body is at a full volume level. Note that in Paragraph [0033], lines 14-21, McIntosh describes each of the types of information that the indicator may display including the toilet paper needing to be replaced or the container body is at an empty volume level described on line 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Denen with each of these lights, as taught by McIntosh, for the purpose of determining the status of the paper dispenser. Denen in view of McIntosh teaches all the elements of the dispenser but it is unclear whether the system includes a determination of volume. However, Murphy, Figures 1-37, and Paragraph [0178], teaches a control unit 170 determines a volume level within the container body based on a size of the roll of paper within the container body 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Denen with the ability to determine the volume level for the roll, as taught by Murphy, for the purpose of informing a user when the paper roll supply is running low. With respect to Claim 2, Denen further teaches wherein the dispensing aperture 62 has a size corresponding to a size of the at least one sheet of the roll of toilet paper. With respect to Claim 6, Denen further teaches a dispensing light 130 disposed on at least a portion of the container body to illuminate in response to movement by the motor and the at least one sheet of paper of the roll of toilet paper moving through the dispensing aperture. See Paragraph [0038], lines 17-26. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599875
WINDING SYSTEM FOR WINDING UP CONCATENATED HOLLOW FIBRES ONTO A WINDING CORE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600589
ROLL DISPENSER FOR SUPPORTING ROLL OF PACKAGING MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599120
WATERPROOF SPINNING FISHING REEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595146
HAND DISPENSER FOR STRETCH WRAP COMPRISED OF PAPER OR CARDBOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595151
REEL SPOOLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1271 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month