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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritzenhoff (US 3817636).
Regarding claim 13, Ritzenhoff discloses a dispenser for retaining and presenting a solid stick of hygiene product for application of said solid stick on a surface, comprising: a dispenser body (11) having an elongated cavity, said cavity having an opening at an end of said cavity; a hollow cylindrical member (10) disposed within said cavity and being rotatable within said body, said hollow cylindrical member comprising a base (at 22) at least two radially opposed helical members (portions of 10 on either side of slots 15-15’) 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 (Fig. 2); said cylindrical member being configured to receive said solid stick (on carrier 13) 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. 1); an abutment element (13) disposed within said cylindrical member and having at least two radially opposed extensions (14, 14’) that project through said opposed grooves; whereby rotation of said cylindrical member causes said abutment element to migrate along said grooves.
Regarding claim 14, Ritzenhoff discloses the dispenser of claim 13 wherein each of said radially opposed extensions engages in respective straight guide channels (defined by ridges 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 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) 1, 6-7, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiedemann (GB 465774).
Regarding claim 1, Tiedemann teaches a dispenser for retaining and presenting a solid stick of hygiene product for application of said solid stick to a surface, comprising: a dispenser body (5); an elongated cavity (interior of 5) in said body, said cavity having an opening (at 15) at an end of said cavity; said cavity being configured to receive said solid stick (1) such that an end of said solid stick protrudes through said opening (Fig. 1); and, a flexible, elastic sleeve (12) disposed co-axially about said opening, said sleeve having an inner diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter of said opening whereby to snugly engage said solid stick (pg. 1, ll. 56-63); 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 (pg. 1, ll. 56-63); wherein the dispenser comprises a detachable base (10), and wherein said sleeve has an annular flange (washer 12) is configured to be clamped between said dispenser body and said detachable base (See Fig. 1; the clamping force is provided by base 10 and transferred through the base of bristles 11 to the sleeve).
Tiedemann does not teach that the sleeve has a hollow cylindrical portion extending downward from the annular flange.
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 6, Tiedemann teaches the dispenser of claim 1 wherein said dispenser is a brush or a sponge (brush 11) and said hygiene product is soap (soap 1).
Regarding claim 7, Tiedemann teaches the dispenser according to claim 1 wherein: said dispenser is a brush (11); said solid stick of hygiene product is a solid stick of soap (1); said body comprises a plurality of bristles on a surface of said body; and, said opening opens among and between said bristles (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Tiedemann teaches a brush for retaining and presenting solid soap in the vicinity of bristles of the brush, comprising: a brush body (5); a bristle assembly plurality of bristles (11), the bristle assembly detachable from said brush body (by unthreaded cap 10); a cavity (interior of 5) extending through the brush body, said cavity having an opening (at 15) in said surface; a flexible, elastic sleeve (12) disposed co-axially about said opening, said sleeve having an inner diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter of said opening (pg. 1, ll. 56-63); and, said cavity being configured to slidably receive a bar of solid soap (1) such that an end of said bar protrudes among the plurality of bristles (Fig. 1) and such that said sleeve snugly engages sides of said bar (pg. 1, ll. 56-63); wherein said sleeve comprises an annular flange (washer 12), and wherein the flange is configured to be clamped (via the force applied by the threaded cap 10).
Tiedemann does not teach that the sleeve has hollow cylindrical portion extending downward from the annular flange.
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 a cylindrical hollow portion because both sleeves are equally capable of engaging the soap stick.
Regarding claim 32, Tiedemann teaches the brush of claim 31 wherein said cavity is cylindrical (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Tiedemann teaches the brush of claim 31 wherein said opening is in a center of said plurality of bristles (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzenhoff as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tiedemann (GB 465774).
Regarding claim 16, 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) and a hygiene product that 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 Ritzenhoff such that the dispenser is a brush and the hygiene product is solid soap as taught by Tiedemann for the purpose of enabling a user to apply the soap to their skin (Tiedemann, coll. 1, ll. 8-19).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of 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 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), wherein said sleeve comprises an annular flange (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, ll. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments against the Kim reference, it is noted that the Kim reference is not relied upon for any present rejections.
Applicant argues that Tiedemann does not teach a sleeve comprising an annular flange and a hollow cylindrical portion extending therefrom.
In response, it is noted that the difference between the sleeve of Tiedemann and the claimed sleeve is merely one of shape. Applicant has not disclosed any criticality of the shape of the sleeve, and both the claimed sleeve and Tiedemann’s sleeve operate in the same manner to perform the same functions. As such, the claimed sleeve is obvious in view of the sleeve of Tiedemann.
Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill seeking to improve the Tiedemann device by decreasing the friction between the wiper and stick are unpersuasive because they are mere speculation.
Applicant argues that Tiedemann teaches away from the claimed sleeve design.
Examiner disagrees. "[A] reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed." (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). In this case, Tiedemann does not disparage the claimed sleeve design, and does not teach away from it.
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 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