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
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: amended Paragraph 0019 still uses reference character 106 for both a “dispensing system” and “sinks” (see lines 2-3 of the specification amendment dated 6/17/2026).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4: line 2 contains an extraneous word (“wherein”), and “the emitter and receiver” should read --the emitter and the receiver-- for clarity.
In claim 11: line 12 “toa” should read --to a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilolla et al. (US 4,938,384, hereinafter “Pilolla”) in view of Laverty, Jr. (US 4,872,485, hereinafter “Laverty”).
Regarding claim 1, Pilolla discloses a through-the-wall touch-free dispenser system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongated wall mounting base (24); the elongated wall mounting base having a length (the left-to-right dimension mating with the interior of 16 in Fig. 1) and a width (the out-of-plane dimension in Fig. 1, not shown or described), and wherein wall mounting base is configured such that the length is in the vertical direction when the touch-free dispenser is mounted on a wall (“While the base 16 is shown mounted to a horizontal surface 22, obviously it could be mounted on a vertical wall or other suitable support member with appropriate modifications of the neck's shape”; Col. 2, line 65 - Col. 3, line 5; when mounted to a vertical wall, the left-to-right dimension would be vertical, i.e., rotated 90 degrees clockwise from Fig. 1);
a spout (18); a base housing (16); wherein the spout extends further outward than the base housing; wherein the base housing extends below the spout (when mounted to a vertical wall as described above);
a liquid inlet conduit (36) that is configured to extend through at least a portion of the wall (see Fig. 1); a pump (14) in fluid communication with the liquid inlet conduit (see Fig. 1); a reservoir (12) for holding liquid; the reservoir in fluid communication with the pump (see Fig. 1); and
control circuitry (on board 28) for causing the through-the-wall touch-free dispenser system to dispense fluid (Col. 1, lines 62-66, Col. 3, lines 5-8).
Pilolla is silent regarding the width of the mounting base, but discloses a round spout that would have a width that is less than the length of the base housing (see Figs. 3-4). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the mounting base of Pilolla to have a length greater than the width, especially considering that no features are disclosed that would require a significantly greater width than the spout. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular ratio of length to width, and it appears that the device of Pilolla would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitation.
Pilolla further discloses an object sensor including an emitter and a receiver aligned along a vertical axis (see 30 and 32 in Fig. 1), but does not disclose the emitter and receiver being mounted on the same surface of the base housing. However, Pilolla contemplates alternative sensor arrangements, including a reflective system in place of the “break beam type” illustrated in Fig. 1 (see Col. 3, lines 29-41). Laverty teaches an object sensor (see 12 in Figs. 1-2) having an emitter (32) and a receiver (33) wherein the emitter and receiver are located above one another (see Figs. 5-8), and aligned along a vertical axis when mounted on a vertical surface (e.g., see the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 11). Laverty further teaches that the emitter has an emitter axis angled downward from a horizontal plane and the receiver has a receiver axis angled upward from a horizontal plane (see paths 15 and 19 in Figs. 2-3). Laverty teaches that this arrangement enables a signal to be reflected and received only from a preselected location (i.e., a reflective system; see Col. 6, lines 44-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the dispenser system of Pilolla, mounted to a vertical wall as described above, with an object sensor having the vertical arrangement taught by Laverty as a reflective system. Pilolla discloses an object sensor having an emitter in the base housing, but does not disclose how the system (in particular, the receiver) would be impacted by the disclosed change in shape when mounting to a vertical wall, and does not describe the contemplated reflective system. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Laverty providing a suitable example of an object sensor intended for such an application. When the object sensor arrangement of Laverty is implemented in the system of Pilolla, the combined invention would include an object sensor having an emitter and a receiver aligned along a vertical axis and on a vertical surface of the base housing (in the location of the emitter disclosed by Pilolla), with the receiver having a positive axis from the horizontal plane and the emitter having a negative axis from the horizontal plane (i.e., converging to an intersection point; Examiner interprets the claimed axes to correspond to the paths described by Laverty in a vertically-oriented sensor).
Neither reference explicitly discloses that the emitter axis or receiver axis is configured to be in the claimed range of angles (+/- 10°-45° from a horizontal plane). However, as cited above, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the object sensor of the combined invention to have an emitter axis and receiver axis in the claimed range of angles, with the specific angles based on the geometric design constraints of the particular application of the system. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle, and it appears that the combined invention would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Pilolla further discloses a cable (34a, 34b) for providing power to the object sensor and for providing signals from the object sensor (Col. 3, lines 9-13), wherein the cable is configured to pass through at least a portion of the wall (see Fig. 1). Laverty discloses similar features (e.g., see 130, 146 in Fig. 6) that would be incorporated into the system of Pilolla in the combined invention.
Regarding claim 3, Pilolla further discloses a sensor circuit board (28, containing control circuitry as noted above regarding claim 1) located in the base housing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Pilolla-Laverty in combination disclose the dispenser system of claim 2, and Pilolla further discloses that the emitter is mounted to a sensor circuit board (Col. 3, lines 9-13). The emitter and receiver of the object sensor of the combined invention is similarly taught by Laverty to be mounted to a sensor circuit board (122, see Figs. 5-8).
Regarding claims 5-6, Pilolla further discloses that the base housing is mounted on a mounting plate configured to be recessed in the wall (top of 24 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Pilolla discloses a spout containing the receiver of object sensor. However, the spout of the combined invention would be devoid of electronic components, since the object sensor components would be incorporated into the base housing instead, as described above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, neither Pilolla nor Laverty explicitly disclose a base housing having an oval shape. However, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the base housing of the combined invention to have an oval shape, especially considering the length/width dimensions discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, as described above regarding claim 1, Laverty teaches that the emitter of the combined invention has a downward axis from a horizontal plane and the receiver has an upward axis from the horizontal plane. Laverty describes the use of filters/lenses (), and/or electronic means (“range adjuster”; Col. for adjusting the range of the sensor, but does not describe the emitter and receiver themselves being angled (Examiner interprets the instant claim to further define the object sensor of claim 1 to require the emitter and receiver to be “mounted at an angle”, in accordance with Paragraphs 0033-0034 of the instant specification). However, Pilolla discloses an emitter that is angled for a similar purpose (i.e., to direct a beam toward the receiver in the “break beam type” sensor system; see 30 in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the emitter and receiver of the combined invention to be angled, as shown in Pilolla with respect to the emitter, in order to facilitate the emission/reception of a beam at the angles shown by Laverty for a vertically-oriented sensor.
Regarding claim 10, as noted above regarding claim 1, neither reference explicitly discloses that the emitter axis or receiver axis is configured to be in the claimed range of angles (greater than 20° from the horizontal plane). However, as cited above, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the object sensor of the combined invention to have an emitter axis and receiver axis in the claimed range of angles, with the specific angles based on the geometric design constraints of the particular application of the system. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle, and it appears that the combined invention would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitations.
Claims 11-12, 15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilolla in view of Laverty and Ophardt (US 2008/0121660, hereinafter “Ophardt ‘660”).
Regarding claim 11, Pilolla discloses a through-the-wall touch-free soap dispenser (see Fig. 1; dispenser may be mounted to a vertical wall as detailed above regarding claim 1) comprising:
a liquid reservoir (12); a pump (14); a liquid feed conduit (64) in fluid communication with the liquid reservoir and the pump (see Fig. 1); a liquid conduit (36);
a base plate (24); the base plate having an opening therethrough (opening through which 36 passes; see Fig. 1); the opening having a height (diameter of opening in the cross-section of Fig. 1) and a width (the out-of-plane dimension in Fig. 1, not shown or described);
a spout (18); the base plate configured to be mounted to a wall (when mounted to a vertical wall as described above, 22 in Fig. 1 represents the wall); a base housing (16); the base housing configured to mount to the base plate (see Fig. 1); the spout extending outward from the base housing (when mounted to a vertical wall as described above); wherein the spout has an axially extending centerline (centerline of straight section at 10 in Fig. 1); wherein the axially extending centerline is substantially orthogonal to a surface of the base housing (when mounted to a vertical wall as described above, the centerline would be generally horizontally oriented, while the base housing would be generally vertically oriented);
a dispensing nozzle (38) located near an end of the spout (see Figs. 1-2);
the base housing having a lower portion (when mounted on a vertical wall, the right end of 16 would be the lower portion); an object sensor (30) located in the lower portion; and
control circuitry for receiving a signal from the object sensor and causing the pump to dispense a dose of fluid when an object is detected by the object sensor (Col. 1, lines 62-66, Col. 3, lines 5-8).
Pilolla differs from the claimed invention in that it does not disclose that the height of the base plate opening is greater than the width, and it does not disclose the details of the object sensor arrangement, or the air conduit/mixing chamber.
With respect to the base plate opening, Pilolla is silent regarding the width of the opening, but it is apparent from Fig. 1 that the opening is only required to accommodate conduit 36 and the wiring from 28 (see wires passing through the opening and exiting below the threaded portion of 24 in Fig. 1). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the base plate of Pilolla to have a height greater than the width, especially considering that no features are disclosed that would require a significantly greater width than that of the conduit and wires. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular ratio of height to width, and it appears that the device of Pilolla would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitation.
With respect to the object sensor arrangement, as described above regarding claim 1, the vertically-oriented object sensor arrangement taught by Laverty would be obvious to use in the device of Pilolla when configuring the device to be mounted to a vertical wall. Each limitation of the object sensor arrangement is addressed above regarding claim 1 except that the emitter and the receiver are located at least 20 millimeters apart. Laverty is silent regarding this dimension. However, as cited above, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the object sensor of the combined invention to have the claimed dimension, especially considering the typical scale of such a dispenser in the art. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular dimension, only noting that the emitter and receiver “are preferably spaced apart by as much distance as is feasible” (see Paragraph 0036 of the specification), and it appears that the object sensor of the combined invention would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitation.
With respect to the air conduit and mixing chamber, neither Pilolla nor Laverty disclose such features. Pilolla only teaches an intended use as a dispenser of liquid soap (see Col. 4, lines 1-9). Ophardt ‘660 teaches a similar soap dispenser (Figs. 2-3) comprising: a liquid conduit (29); an air conduit (33); a spout (forward extending portion of 16; see Fig. 3); a dispensing nozzle (46) located near an end of the spout (Fig. 4); a mixing chamber (43) located in the spout (see Fig. 4); the mixing chamber having an air inlet (47) and a liquid inlet (48); and the mixing chamber is in fluid communication with the liquid conduit, the air conduit and the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 4). Ophardt ‘660 teaches that this configuration can allow dispensing of either liquid or foam soap (Paragraph 0062).
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 Pilolla-Laverty with an air conduit and mixing chamber, as taught by Ophardt ‘660, in order to allow dispensing of either liquid or foam soap. One having ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with both systems and would thus be capable of making the necessary modifications with predictable results.
Thus, the dispenser of Pilolla, modified as described above in view of Laverty and Ophardt ‘660, renders obvious the through-the-wall touch-free soap dispenser of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Pilolla does not describe or illustrate the disclosed wall-mounted configuration, and thus does not explicitly disclose an angle between the axial centerline and a surface of the base housing in this configuration. However, Pilolla discloses an embodiment of the dispenser (Fig. 7) having a spout (160) that that is at an angle of 80 degrees from a surface of the base housing (see 10 degree angle shown in Fig. 8).
As cited above, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when mounting the dispenser to a vertical wall, to configure the spout such that an axially extending centerline is at an angle of between 80 degrees and 100 degrees from a surface of the base housing, since Pilolla discloses that such a shape would be appropriate for the dispenser in a different configuration. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular dimension, and it appears that the spout of the combined invention would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Pilolla-Laverty-Ophardt ‘660 in combination disclose the dispenser of claim 11. Pilolla discloses that the object sensor and dispensing nozzle are located in a plane (see Fig. 1). When modified with the object sensor arrangement taught by Laverty, this relationship would still hold true, thus the emitter, the receiver, and the dispensing nozzle would be located in a plane.
Regarding claims 21-22, Pilolla-Laverty-Ophardt ‘660 in combination disclose the dispenser of claim 11. As noted above regarding claims 1 and 11, the distance between the emitter and the receiver, and the angles of the emitter axis and the receiver axis are not explicitly disclosed by the cited references. However, as cited above, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when mounting the dispenser to a vertical wall, to configure the object sensor such that the emitter and receiver are located at least 35 millimeters apart, the angles of the emitter axis and the receiver axis are greater than 20°, and the emitter axis and the receiver axis have an angle of intersection of between 40° and 60°. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any of the recited dimensions (as noted above regarding the distance recited in claim 11 and the angle ranges recited in claim 1, as well as Paragraph 0035 of the specification, merely disclosing a wide range of the angle of intersection), and it appears that the object sensor of the combined invention would work appropriately if made according to the claim limitation. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the object sensor of the combined invention to have dimensions in the claimed ranges based on the geometric design constraints of the particular application of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendment dated 6/17/2026 significantly changes the scope of the invention by reciting several limitations related to the object sensor. Additional search and consideration necessitated by these amendments has resulted in the new rejections using the Pilolla and Laverty references.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and in particular the Ophardt ‘660 reference, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ophardt ‘660 does not disclose a through-the-wall touch-free soap dispenser because the disclosure illustrates a countertop mounted dispensing spout, and “[t]he difference between a wall mounted dispensing spout and a counter-mount dispensing spout is not insignificant” (Remarks, Page 12, last paragraph). Examiner notes that Ophardt ‘660 does not limit the disclosed invention to a particular mounting surface, and further describes that “[i]n other arrangements with sink side spouts or wall mounted spouts, the reservoir, liquid pumps and air pumps may be mounted as in a service room behind a wall near where the spouts are mounted” (Paragraph 0061). Additionally, Examiner has not noted any features in the instant application that would limit the claims to mounting on a vertical wall, which appears to be assumed in Applicant’s Remarks.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that “[o]ne cannot just arbitrarily assume that a sensor for a countertop dispenser is interchangeable with a wall mount dispensing spout. Nor can the sensors be arbitrarily arranged” (Remarks, Page 13, first paragraph), 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. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s detailed explanation regarding the sensor configuration for a vertically oriented dispenser, but notes that distinguishing the instant invention from the prior art of record would require further delineation of the relevant structures in the claim language.
Nevertheless, the amendments reciting additional subject matter in the independent claims necessitated further search and consideration, which resulted in the use of Ophardt ‘660 as a teaching reference for modifying the Pilolla reference, which explicitly discloses the obvious application of such a dispenser on a vertical wall, as cited in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Figurski et al. (US 10,100,501) and Montague (US 10,428,498) disclose through-the-wall soap dispensers relevant to the instant application, and Laverty, Jr. (US 4,805,247), Laverty, Jr. et al. (US 5,508,510), Wilson (US 4,894,874), and Hamanaka et al. (US 5,758,688) teach object sensor arrangements relevant to the instant application.
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 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights