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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Green fails to disclose “a thinned portion that extends around at least a portion of a circumference of the fastener aperture and is disposed in a recess surrounding the fastener aperture” and that the thinned portion breaks at a desired force threshold. However, Green clearly discloses a thinned portion (170) that extends around at least a portion of a circumference of the fastener aperture and is disposed in a recess (172) surrounding the fastener aperture:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Green also discloses that the one or more holes can be configured in an anti-ligature arrangement or pattern and will break loose from the mounting surface when a certain amount of force is exerted (para 0048), which reads on the thinned portions breaking at a desired force threshold. Adjusting the thickness of the thinned portion to adjust the certain amount of force needed to break the anti-ligature holes would have been mere optimization through routine experimentation. For at least the foregoing reasons.
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, 4-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. US 2022/0000321.
Green discloses a dispenser mountable to a surface, the dispenser comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a back housing adapted to be mounted to the surface, wherein the back housing
comprises a first side configured to face the surface and a second and opposite side” (50 figure 4). “a front cover enclosing at least a portion of said back housing, wherein when in a closed condition forming a housing having an interior volume SO as to retain at least one dispensable product” (114 figure 4). “a mounting bracket comprising a baseplate having a mounting surface and an outward-facing surface, the baseplate comprising one or more fastener apertures configured to receive one or more fasteners for mounting the bracket to the surface” (10 figure 2,4). “the one or more fastener apertures comprising a thinned portion that extends around at least a portion of a circumference of the fastener aperture and is disposed in a recess surrounding the fastener aperture, wherein the thinned portion is configured to break upon application of a threshold force” (236 figure 11, ‘break … certain amount of force’ para 0048, 170,172 figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Though thinned portions are only disclosed in relation to the second embodiment it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include them in the first embodiment to prevent the mount from being used to support a ligature.
(Re claim 2) “the baseplate comprises a plurality of fastener apertures” (60 figure 1).
(Re claim 4) “the one or more fastener apertures are disposed on one or more feet defined on the baseplate” (60, 12a-d figure 1).
(Re claim 5) “the one or more fastener apertures have a raised portion having a width of from about 1.5 mm to about 4 mm” (236 figure 11). Though measurements are not given for the raised area, but appear to be in the range of 1.5 to 4 mm. These measurements could also have been arrived at through routine testing.
(Re claim 6) Green does not disclose that the threshold force is about or greater than 30 Kg.
To qualify as an anti-ligature mount the force support must be below a certain value. A value of 30 Kg could have been arrived at through routine testing and optimization.
(Re claim 7) “the baseplate comprises a mounting bracket locking component configured to engage an aperture or slot on the first side of the back housing to secure the back housing to the mounting bracket” (40 figure 2).
(Re claim 8) “wherein the mounting bracket locking component can be depressed to facilitate removal of the dispenser from the mounting bracket” (40 figure 2).
(Re claim 9) “the mounting bracket includes at least one leveling device to facilitate levelling the mounting bracket upon installation” (30,32 figure 2).
(Re claim 10) “the one or more fasteners comprises one or more screws” (claim 12).
(Re claim 11) “a dispensing mechanism contained within the housing for dispensing the dispensable product, wherein the dispensable product is a roll of sheet material” (claim 13).
(Re claim 12) “the roll of sheet material comprises a roll of paper towels for dispensing paper towels from the dispenser” (claim 14).
(Re claim 13) “a dispensing mechanism contained within the housing for dispensing the dispensable product that is a liquid” (claim 16).
(Re claim 14) “a locking mechanism for locking the front cover to the back housing” (claim 17).
(Re claim 15) “the front cover is hingedly attached to the back housing” (claim 18).
Green discloses a dispenser mountable to a surface, the dispenser comprising:
(Re claim 16) “a back housing adapted to be mounted to the surface including a first side configured to face the surface and a second and opposite side, the back housing comprising one or more fastener apertures configured to receive one or more fasteners for mounting the back housing to the surface” (50 figure 4, 10 figure 2,4). “the one or more fastener apertures comprising a thinned portion that extends around at least a portion of a circumference of the fastener aperture and is disposed in a recess surrounding the fastener aperture, wherein the thinned portion is configured to break upon application of a force” (236 figure 11, ‘break … certain amount of force’ para 0048, 170,172 figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Though thinned portions are only disclosed in relation to the second embodiment it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include them in the first embodiment to prevent the mount from being used to support a ligature. “a front cover enclosing at least a portion of said back housing when in a closed condition forming a housing having an interior volume SO as to retain at least one dispensable product” (114 figure 4).
(Re claim 17) Green does not disclose that the threshold force is about or greater than 30 Kg.
To qualify as an anti-ligature mount the force support must be below a certain value. A value of 30 Kg could have been arrived at through routine testing.
(Re claim 19) “the one or more fastener apertures have a raised portion having a width of from about 1.5 mm to about 4 mm” (236 figure 11). Though measurements are not given for the raised area, but appear to be in the range of 1.5 to 4 mm. These measurements could also have been arrived at through routine testing.
(Re claim 20) “the one or more fasteners comprises one or more screws” (claim 12).
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 TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights