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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616) in view of Scarola et al. (US 2011/0234598), and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 2022/0079394).
Claim 1, Hermann teaches a hand washing monitoring system (abstract) comprising:
a soap dispenser disposed at a site (Fig. 2, sanitization unit 22);
a proximity sensor configured to sense one or more persons within proximity of the soap dispenser at the site (par. 56: the proximity detector/sensor 26 is mounted to the housing and determines proximity of a person with respect to the detector/sensor 26).
Hermann does not teach:
an accelerometer configured to detect whether soap is dispensed from the soap dispenser; and
a radar sensor configured to determine how many people are present at the site.
In the field of endeavor, Scarola teaches sensor 115 can be a motion detector or accelerometer operable to regulate the transmission from the dispenser transmitter 110 in response to detecting release of sanitizer 125 from the dispenser 120 (par. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hermann’s dispensing sensor by substituting with an accelerometer sensor for dispensing detection as taught by Scarola, a finding that that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
The combination does not teach:
a radar sensor configured to determine how many people are present at the site.
In the field of endeavor, Murphy teaches using radar sensor for tracking position and a quantity of users in the vicinity of an automated dispenser (par. 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination’s dispenser unit detection sensor by substituting with a radar sensor for tracking user as taught by Murphy, a finding that that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the proximity sensor is integrated with or coupled to the soap dispenser (Hermann Fig. 2, proximity sensor 26).
Claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the accelerometer is integrated with or coupled to the soap dispenser (Hermann Fig. 2, switch/usage sensor 40).
Claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the radar sensor is integrated with or coupled to the soap dispenser (Murphy Fig. 1, user sensor 133).
Claim 5, the combination teaches wherein each of the people present at the site is equipped with an identifying device (Hermann par. 14: electronic tags worn by one or more persons), the system further comprising a first wireless interface for detecting the identifying device and a second wireless interface for providing detection information from the first wireless interface to a gateway, cloud, or database (Fig. 6, par. 14: the one or more electronic tags may be operative to communicate with one or more dispensers, a central computing system/station, and/or a data collection server, and may transmit information from one or more sensors operatively connected to the one or more electronic tags. As shown in Fig. 6, communication between server with dispensing station, and from dispensing station to tag required communication interfaces).
Claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the identifying device is configured to identify the one or more persons in proximity to the soap dispenser (Hermann par. 15: a tag radio frequency module operative to communicate with the at least one sanitization unit and the central computing system; and 3) one or more sensors for tracking a location of the at least one tag).
Claim 7, the combination teaches further comprising one of a display and a sound device configured to signal whether one or more of the people present at the site have not washed their hands (Hermann par. 52: In specific embodiments, the alarm sounds when the person fails to dispense antiseptic solution from the dispenser within a predetermined period of time after moving within a predetermined range of the detector).
Claim 8, the combination teaches further comprising a solar cell coupled to the soap dispenser and configured to provide power to one or more of the proximity sensor, the accelerometer, and the radar sensor from ambient light at the site (Hermann par. 71: power source may be rechargeable by solar energy (via one or more solar panels not shown)).
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616) in view of Scarola et al. (US 2011/0234598).
Claim 9, Hermann teaches disinfectant dispenser (Fig. 2, unit 22) comprising:
a proximity sensor configured to sense one or more persons within proximity of the disinfectant dispenser (par. 56: the proximity detector/sensor 26 is mounted to the housing and determines proximity of a person with respect to the detector/sensor 26);
a disinfectant reservoir (Fig. 2, dispenser 28 includes reservoir); and
a dispensing nozzle coupled to the disinfectant reservoir and configured to dispense disinfectant (par. 55: dispensing hygiene product such as sanitizer through nozzle).
Hermann does not teach an accelerometer configured to detect whether disinfectant is dispensed.
In the field of endeavor, Scarola teaches sensor 115 can be a motion detector or accelerometer operable to regulate the transmission from the dispenser transmitter 110 in response to detecting release of sanitizer 125 from the dispenser 120 (par. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hermann’s dispensing sensor by substituting with an accelerometer sensor for dispensing detection as taught by Scarola, a finding that that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to identify the one or more persons in proximity thereof by communicating with an identifying device of the one or more persons (Hermann par. 14-15: par. 14: electronic tags worn by one or more persons … a tag radio frequency module operative to communicate with the at least one sanitization unit and the central computing system; and 3) one or more sensors for tracking a location of the at least one tag).
Claim 12, the combination teaches further comprising a solar cell configured to provide power to at least one of the proximity sensor and the accelerometer (Hermann par. 71: power source may be rechargeable by solar energy (via one or more solar panels not shown)).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616) in view of Scarola et al. (US 2011/0234598), and further in view of Ali et al. (US 2023/0068765).
Claim 11, the combination does not teach further comprising a radar sensor configured to be powered on after the proximity sensor determines presence of one or more persons.
In the field of endeavor, Ali teaches keeping a radar module in a sleep state until presence detected through an infrared sensor (par. 145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination’s dispenser sensing by further including a radar sensor activation through another proximity detection sensor as taught by Ali in order to provide availability of power for other communication functionality and the results of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ali par. 145).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,492. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are of similar scope.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492 in view of Murphy et al. (US 2022/0079394). Murphy teaches wherein the radar sensor is integrated with or coupled to the soap dispenser (Murphy Fig. 1, user sensor 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the radar sensor placement by integrating or coupling the radar sensor with a soap dispenser, since it was held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492 in view of Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616). Hermann teaches wherein each of the people present at the site is equipped with an identifying device (Hermann par. 14: electronic tags worn by one or more persons), the system further comprising a first wireless interface for detecting the identifying device and a second wireless interface for providing detection information from the first wireless interface to a gateway, cloud, or database (Fig. 6, par. 14: the one or more electronic tags may be operative to communicate with one or more dispensers, a central computing system/station, and/or a data collection server, and may transmit information from one or more sensors operatively connected to the one or more electronic tags. As shown in Fig. 6, communication between server with dispensing station, and from dispensing station to tag required communication interfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilized equipped each of the people present at the site with an identifying device and communicating the identifying device information to a remote server as taught by Hermann in order to provide an alternative means of identifying each user detected.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492 in view of Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616). Hermann teaches wherein the identifying device is configured to identify the one or more persons in proximity to the soap dispenser (Hermann par. 15: a tag radio frequency module operative to communicate with the at least one sanitization unit and the central computing system; and 3) one or more sensors for tracking a location of the at least one tag).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,492.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492 in view of Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616). Hermann teaches further comprising a solar cell coupled to the soap dispenser and configured to provide power to one or more of the proximity sensor, the accelerometer, and the radar sensor from ambient light at the site (Hermann par. 71: power source may be rechargeable by solar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilized a solar cell coupled to soap dispenser as taught by Hermann in order to provide alternative power source to other electronics devices.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,492.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,492.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492 in view of Ali et al. (US 2023/0068765). Ali teaches keeping a radar module in a sleep state until presence detected through an infrared sensor (par. 145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination’s dispenser sensing by further including a radar sensor activation through another proximity detection sensor as taught by Ali in order to provide availability of power for other communication functionality and the results of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ali par. 145).
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12165492 in view of Hermann et al. (US 2019/0362616). Hermann teaches further comprising a solar cell configured to provide power to at least one of the proximity sensor and the accelerometer (Hermann par. 71: power source may be rechargeable by solar energy (via one or more solar panels not shown)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilized a solar cell coupled to soap dispenser as taught by Hermann in order to provide alternative power source to other electronics devices.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 9-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,165,492. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 5712723059. 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.
/AN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686