-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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 June 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakalys (US 3308939) in view of Ritzenhoff (US 3817636).
Sakalys teaches a dispenser for retaining and presenting a solid stick of hygiene product (10) for application of said solid stick on a surface, comprising: a dispenser body (4) having an elongated cavity, said cavity having an opening (at top of 4) at an end of said cavity; a hollow cylindrical member (6) disposed within said cavity and being rotatable within said body, said hollow cylindrical member comprising a base (13) and a helical groove (7), said cylindrical member being configured to receive said solid stick (Fig. 2) and said cylindrical member being disposed in said body such that an end of said solid stick received in said cylinder member protrudes through said opening of said cavity (Fig. 3); an abutment element (8) disposed within said cylindrical member and an extension (9) that projects through said groove; whereby rotation of said cylindrical member causes said abutment element to migrate along said grooves; and wherein said cavity comprises an annular space between said end of said cavity and said hollow cylindrical member, said annular space in communication with said helical groove.
PNG
media_image1.png
279
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sakalys does not teach that the hollow cylindrical member comprises at least two radially opposed helical members extending from said base towards said opening, said at least two helical members unconnected to each other except by said base; said at least two radially opposed helical members defining between them at least two parallel helical grooves that are radially opposed to one another, or that the abutment element has at least two radially opposed extensions.
Ritzenhoff teaches a hollow cylindrical member comprising at least two radially opposed helical members (23, 23’) extending from said base towards said opening, said at least two helical members unconnected to each other except by said base (Fig. 2); said at least two radially opposed helical members defining between them at least two parallel helical grooves (15, 15’) that are radially opposed to one another, and that the abutment element has at least two radially opposed extensions (14, 14’).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hollow cylindrical member of Sakalys to include at least two radially opposed helical members extending from said base towards said opening, said at least two helical members unconnected to each other except by said base; said at least two radially opposed helical members defining between them at least two parallel helical grooves that are radially opposed to one another and that the abutment element has at least two radially opposed extensions as taught by Ritzenhoff for the purpose of providing the device with smooth frictional contact between the dispenser body and the hollow cylindrical sleeve and imparting a luxurious “feel” to the movement of the abutment element (Ritzenhoff, col. 2, ll. 47-56).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sakalys and Ritzenhoff teaches the dispenser of claim 13 wherein each of said radially opposed extensions engages in respective straight guide channels (Sakalys 5; Ritzenhoff 16) formed in said body parallel to a longitudinal axis of said cylindrical member, whereby to prevent rotation of said abutment element when said cylindrical member rotates and to force said abutment member to migrate along said grooves.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakalys and Ritzenhoff as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tiedemann (GB 465774).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sakalys and Ritzenhoff teaches the dispenser of claim 13 but does not teach that said dispenser is a brush or a sponge and said hygiene product is soap in solid form.
Tiedemann teaches a dispenser that is a brush (11) or a sponge and said hygiene product is soap in solid form (1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sakalys such that said dispenser is a brush or a sponge and said hygiene product is soap in solid form as taught by Tiedemann for the purpose of enabling the user to apply soap to their skin (Tiedemann, pg. 1, ll. 8-19).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sakalys, Ritzenhoff, and Tiedemann teaches the dispenser of claim 16 wherein said body comprises a detachable base (Tiedemann, 10) threadedly engaged with said body.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sakalys, Ritzenhoff, and Tiedemann teaches the dispenser of claim 17 further comprising an elastic sleeve (Tiedemann 12) retained co-axially about said opening and having an inner diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter of said opening, wherein said sleeve is configured to deform when said solid stick is inserted through said inner diameter so as to provide a seal against ingress of water to said cavity (Tiedemann, pg. 1, ll. 56-63), and wherein said sleeve comprises an annular flange (Tiedemann, washer 12), the annular flange configured to be clamped between the detachable base and the body of the dispenser (Tiedemann Fig. 1).
The combination does not teach that said sleeve has a hollow cylindrical portion extending downward from the annular flange.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have provided the device of Ritzenhoff with an elastic sleeve retained co-axially about said opening and having an inner diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter of said opening, wherein said sleeve is configured to deform when said solid stick is inserted through said inner diameter so as to provide a seal against ingress of water to said cavity as taught by Tiedemann for the purpose of removing moisture from the soap when it is withdrawn into the body (Tiedemann, pg. 1, II. 56-63).
Furthermore, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the sleeve of Tiedemann to include a hollow cylindrical portion extending downward from the annular flange because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific shape of the sleeve provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Tiedemann's device and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the sleeve taught by Tiedemann or the claimed sleeve including an elongated hollow portion because both sleeves are equally capable of engaging the soap stick.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Sakalys and Ritzenhoff teaches the dispenser according to claim 13, but does not teach that: said dispenser is a brush; said solid stick of hygiene product is a solid stick of soap; said body comprises a plurality of bristles on a surface of said body; and said opening opens among and between said bristles.
Tiedemann teaches a dispenser that is a brush (11), a solid stick of hygiene product that is a solid stick of soap (1), a body that comprises a plurality of bristles (11) on a surface of said body, and an opening (defined by 15) among and between said bristles.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sakalys such that said dispenser is a brush; said solid stick of hygiene product is a solid stick of soap; said body comprises a plurality of bristles on a surface of said body; and said opening opens among and between said bristles as taught by Tiedemann for the purpose of enabling the user to apply soap to their skin (Tiedemann, pg. 1, ll. 8-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ritzenhoff does not teach the claimed annular space, it is noted that the newly cited Sakalys reference is relied upon to teach this feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights