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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
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 1,3-7,9-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2009/0084811 A1) in view of McConnel (US 2006/0289440 A1).
Referring to claims 1 and 7. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) to a user, comprising:
a housing (housing 21) having an opening (25);
an input sensor (input from a motion sensor 114) within the housing for sensing that a user is requesting the wet towel;
at least one towel support arm (45; Figure 3) configured to support a towel roll (41) within the housing (housing 21);
a reservoir (44) configured to containing fluid (44; chemical supply tank; Figure 3; the need apply a liquid disinfectant’ Para. [0005]) within the housing (21);
a drive mechanism (mechanism including members 77 and 83; Figure 9) comprising two or more rollers configured to feed a towel from the towel roll (41) toward the opening (25) in the housing (see Figure 13); and
a fluid-distribution system (system including members 44,103 and 37; Figure 3) located within the housing (21) adjacent to the opening (25) in the housing (housing 21), wherein the fluid-distribution system (system including members 44,103 and 37; Figure 3) is configured to move liquid from the reservoir (44) and spray (37), via a plurality of nozzles (as it passes under an applicator nozzle bar 37. In the preferred embodiment, the nozzle bar applies the spray to the web along a swath 113 having a width less than that of the web; Para. [0029]; the spray head 37 includes a pair of nozzles 38….there will be multiple nozzles; Para. [0042]) the liquid on the towel (29) inside the housing (21) to produce the wet towel (see Figure 9; Para. [0029]) for dispensing from the opening (25) in the housing (21); and
an electronic controller (computer; Para. [0048]) configured to control the fluid-distribution system (computer to control the overall operation; Para. [0048]),
wherein the fluid-distribution system (system including members 44,103 and 37; Figure 3) is positioned upstream of the drive mechanism (see Figure 9).
Nelson does not specifically disclose wherein the fluid-distribution system is positioned downstream of the drive mechanism.
McConnel discloses a hygienic wipe dispenser (10; Figure 3) wherein the fluid-distribution system (including members 42, 44 and 50) is positioned downstream of the drive mechanism (including members 56 and 58; Figure 3).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson to include the fluid-distribution system as being positioned downstream of the drive mechanism as taught by McConnel because the drive mechanism would reduce a chance of the wet towel tearing prior to being dispensed.
Referring to claims 3 and 9. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) to a user, wherein the input sensor (input from a motion sensor 114) is a motion sensor allowing for the dispensing of the wet towel without the user touching the dispensing system (advances the sheet and actuates the release of fluid).
Referring to claims 6 and 12. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) to a user, wherein the input sensor (input from a motion sensor 114) causes activation of the drive mechanism (mechanism including members 77 and 83; Figure 9) and the fluid-distribution system (advances the sheet and actuates the release of fluid).
Referring to claims 4 and 10. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) wherein the liquid is sprayed onto the dry towel can be a continuous longitudinal swath or the spray may be intermittent ([Para. 0052]).
Nelson in view of McConnel do not specifically disclose the dispensing system comprising wherein the fluid is sprayed onto the dry towel to create a coverage of about 0.04 to about 0.06 milliliter per square inch.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise the fluid sprayed onto the dry towel to create a coverage of about 0.04 to about 0.06 milliliter per square inch, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Referring to claims 5 and 11. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) wherein the liquid is sprayed onto the dry towel can be a continuous longitudinal swath or the spray may be intermittent ([Para. 0052]).
Nelson in view of McConnel do not specifically disclose the dispensing system comprising wherein the fluid is sprayed onto the dry towel to create a coverage of about 0.05 milliliter per square inch.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise the fluid sprayed onto the dry towel to create a coverage of about 0.05 milliliter per square inch, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
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 2,8,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2009/0084811 A1) in view of McConnel (US 2006/0289440 A1) and further in view of Cooley (US 2003/0201004 A1).
Referring to claims 2 and 8. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) to a user,
wherein the fluid-distribution system (system including members 44,103 and 37; Figure 3) includes a fluid line (64), a pump (103), and the nozzles (38; para. [0042]).
Nelson does not specifically disclose the dispensing system comprising a valve and wherein the valve being located in the fluid line before the nozzles and after the pump.
Cooley discloses a eyeglass cleaning station (Figure 2) wherein the dispensing system (as shown in Figure 2) comprising a valve (outlet valve 18) and wherein the valve (outlet valve 18) being located in the fluid line (24) before the nozzles (11) and after the pump (16).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson to include a valve wherein the valve is located in the fluid line before the nozzles and after the pump as taught by Cooley because the pressure in a fluid line can be increased prior to the valve releasing and dispensing fluid under pressure through the nozzle thus assuring the fluid is released under pressure.
Referring to claims 15 and 16. McConnel discloses a hygienic wipe dispenser (10; Figure 3) wherein the fluid-distribution system (including members 42, 44 and 50) further comprising a thermal control system associated with the fluid line for controlling the temperature of the fluid within the fluid line (the heating element 48 is warmed to a predetermined or a user-set temperature that is preferably sufficient to vaporize liquid from the liquid container 42; Para. [0041]).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2009/0084811 A1) in view of McConnel (US 2006/0289440 A1) and further in view of Balkin (US 8,657,151).
Referring to claim 13. Nelson discloses wherein the electronic controller (computer; Para. [0048]) is configured to control each of the drive mechanism, the pump.
Nelson in view of McConnel do not disclose wherein the valve is a solenoid valve, and wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the solenoid valve.
Balkin discloses a hand protection barrier dispenser (Figure 1) wherein the valve is a solenoid valve, and wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the solenoid valve (a solenoid for operating the valve, the solenoid being electrically connected to the electronic system board; see claim 20).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson in view of McConnel to include the valve as a solenoid valve, and wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the solenoid valve as taught by Balkin because solenoid valve would more accurately control the fluid dispensing from the nozzle.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2009/0084811 A1) in view of McConnel (US 2006/0289440 A1) and further in view of Ward (US 2005/0076532 A1).
Referring to claim 14. Nelson discloses a dispensing system (21; Figure 1) and a method for dispensing a wet towel (wet wipes; see Abstract) to a user, comprising:
wherein the fluid-distribution system further includes a fluid line, a pump, and the nozzles, wherein the electronic controller is configured to control each of the drive mechanism and the peristaltic pump.
Nelson in view of McConnel do not disclose the pump as a peristaltic pump.
Ward discloses a fabric article treating device a wherein the pump for dispensing a fluid is a peristaltic pump (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson in view of McConnel to include the pump for dispensing a fluid as a peristaltic pump as taught by Ward because a peristaltic pump would provide for a quitter operation and dispense a more accurate fluid quantity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See new rejections in view Nelson (US 2009/0084811 A1), McConnel (US 2006/0289440 A1) in view of Cooley (US 2003/0201004 A1) and further in view of Ward (US 2005/0076532 A1) cited above. See modified rejections above.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings submitted 01/06/2026 are acceptable and are entered.
Applicant’s amendment to the specifications submitted 01/06/2026 are acceptable and are entered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651