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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: mounting means in claim 16.
Regarding the limitation “mounting means,” the following application of the 3-prong analysis was utilized to determine a 112(f) interpretation:
Prong (A): the claim limitation uses the generic placeholder “means”
Prong (B): the generic placeholder is modified by functional language: “mounting”
Prong (C): the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function: no additional structure pertaining to the mounting means is recited.
Accordingly, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as screws or dowels and functional equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “vicinity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the term vicinity will be interpreted as any location on the solid soap dispenser.
Regarding claims 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 10 & 16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the electric motor" in 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinuber et al (DE 102021000622) in view of Kroll et al (DE 102022116669).
Regarding claim 1, Hinuber discloses;
A solid soap dispenser, comprising a housing (Fig. 1, 1) and an outlet opening (annotated Fig. 2 below depicts the outlet opening), a grating device (Fig. 11, 8 and the ribs make up the grating device, see annotated Fig. 11 below) for grating a solid soap (Fig. 3, 4), and a conveying device (Fig. 8, 7 & Fig. 3, 3 make up the conveying device) for conveying a solid soap in the direction of the grating device, wherein the conveying device is situated inside the housing ([0011]; The feed plate (3) loading the dosing material is equipped with a central continuous hole and this is designed with a thread, which is accommodated on the spindle (7). The feed plate (3) is also designed with recesses (5) which are accommodated by corresponding guide rails (12) inside the cap (1). This ensures that the components cap (1), feed plate (3) and dosing material (4) have a rotationally frictional connection that is necessary for the function.), and the grating device is situated in the vicinity of the outlet opening (annotated Fig. 2 below depicts the grating device in the vicinity outlet opening), wherein the conveying device is made up of a threaded spindle (Fig. 8, 7) and a feed plate (Fig. 3, 3) resting on the threaded spindle ([abstract]; a feed plate (3) and is seated on a threaded spindle (7)), wherein the threaded spindle opens into the grating device (Fig. 12, 10), and the grating device is in operative connection with an actuating element (Fig. 1, 2) for actuating the grating device (Fig. 1, 2 is the actuating device that actuates the grating device within it), wherein upon actuation of the actuating element the threaded spindle is rotatable and the feed plate is displaceable along the threaded spindle (the threaded spindle is connected to the actuating element such that when the actuating element is actuated, the spindle will rotate. The feed plate loads the soap into the grating device; therefore, it is displaceable along the threaded spindle), characterized in that the threaded spindle has a connecting element at both ends for connecting the threaded spindle to the grating device (Fig. 8 depicts the threaded spindle connecting to the grating device).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
974
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hinuber fails to disclose;
a housing with a housing cover and the grating device is situated in the housing.
However, Kroll teaches;
a housing (Fig. 2, 2) with a housing cover (Fig. 2, 4) and the grating device is situated in the housing ([0044]; the soap dispenser 1 with an inner housing 2, at the lower end of which a cutting unit 3 is arranged). The advantage of having a housing with a housing cover and the grating device is situated in the housing is to provide a more compact soap dispensing unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Kroll with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that has a housing with a housing cover and the grating device is situated in the housing.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber discloses;
in that the conveying device is accommodated in a guide device (Fig. 13, 12), the guide device (Fig. 13, 12) having at least one guide element (see annotated Fig. 13 below) via which entrained movement of the solid soap upon actuation of the actuating element is prevented (the guide element fits into the recesses of the soap, see Fig. 7, element 6, which prevents entrained movement of the soap during actuation of the actuating element).
PNG
media_image3.png
634
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 2, Hinuber discloses;
in that the at least one guide element is a projecting rib (see annotated Fig. 13 depicting the guide element which is a projecting rib).
PNG
media_image4.png
663
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations in claim 2, Hinuber discloses;
in that the feed plate (Fig. 3, 3) has recesses (Fig. 5, 5) for engagement with the guide element of the guide device (Fig. 13, 12).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber discloses;
in that the grating device (Fig. 11, 8 and the ribs make up the grating device, see annotated Fig. 11 below) is made up of multiple ribs situated at the outlet opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below; [0012]), with the ribs having cutting edges and/or cutting teeth (Fig. 11, 8) at the side facing in the direction of the housing cover (Fig. 11 depicts the teeth facing the direction of the housing cover).
PNG
media_image2.png
974
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
860
812
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations in claim 5, Hinuber discloses;
in that the ribs are arranged at the midpoint of the housing in a star shape (Fig. 2 depicts the ribs arranged at the midpoint of the housing in a star shape).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations in claim 5, Hinuber discloses;
in that the cutting edges and/or cutting teeth (Fig. 11, 8) of one rib are offset with respect to the cutting edges and/or cutting teeth (Fig. 11, 8) of a further rib.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber discloses;
in that the actuating element (Fig. 1, 2) has locking tabs (Fig. 13, 11) for connecting the actuating element to the housing (Fig. 1, 1).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber discloses;
in that the actuating element (Fig. 1, 2) is a rotating ring (the actuating element is a ring that can rotate) that is situated at the housing (Fig. 1 depicts the actuating element 2 situated at the housing 1) and preferably has grip bars.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber fails to disclose;
in that an electric motor that is data-linked to a motion sensor situated at the outlet opening is associated with the grating device, so that upon triggering of the motion sensor, the electric motor is activated by the motion sensor and the grating device is actuated by the electric motor
However, Kroll teaches;
in that an electric motor that is data-linked to a motion sensor situated at the outlet opening is associated with the grating device, so that upon triggering of the motion sensor, the electric motor is activated by the motion sensor and the grating device is actuated by the electric motor ([0033]; The motion sensor is particularly preferably provided at the cutting mechanism end of the soap dispenser… The motion sensor is coupled to the electric motor and automatically switches on the electric motor when a movement is detected, for example from the user's hands below the soap dispenser). The advantage of having an electric motor with a data linked motion sensor is to have the electric motor automatically switch on when motion is detected by the motion sensor, thereby automatically dispensing the soap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Kroll with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that has an electric motor with a data linked motion sensor.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber fails to disclose;
in that the electric motor and the motion sensor are operated by means of batteries and/or accumulators
However, Kroll teaches;
in that the electric motor and the motion sensor are operated by means of batteries and/or accumulators ([0047]; the electric motor and motion sensor are coupled together as detailed in claim 12, the battery that powers the electric motor would also power the motion sensor). The advantage of having the electric motor and the motion sensor operated by means of batteries is that the battery can be easily removed and recharged or replaced when needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Kroll with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that is operated by means of a battery.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinuber et al (DE 102021000622) in view of Kroll et al (DE 102022116669) and in further view of Bindler et al (US 10524620).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber fails to disclose;
in that the housing has a fill level indicator, in particular with a viewing window.
However, Bindler teaches;
in that the housing (Fig. 1, 100) has a fill level indicator (Fig. 1, 16), in particular with a viewing window ([16]; A transparent window 16 allows the user to see the soap located within the housing 100. The user can view the condition of the soap 26 (FIG. 3) and can tell when new soap needs to be added).
The advantage of having the housing of the soap dispenser with a fill level indicator, in particular a window, is to be able to view the condition of the soap and determine when new soap needs to be added. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Bindler with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that has a fill level indicator in the hosuing.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinuber et al (DE 102021000622) in view of Kroll et al (DE 102022116669) and in further view of Zhao et al (US 20230180970).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber discloses;
in that the housing cover has a theft-proof design (Fig. 13, 11; a groove (9) is worked into the interior of the hand wheel (2), which is intended for receiving locking lugs. If the cap (1) with the locking lugs (11) is now inserted into the handwheel (2), the parts snap into each other here. This locking ensures the necessary axial locking).
Hinuber does not disclose;
in that the housing cover has a watertight design.
However, Zhao teaches;
in that the housing cover has a watertight design ([0070]; Preferably the closure is substantially water tight, such that the dispenser can also be used in wet environments, such as bathrooms and showers. To that end preferably also the outer housing 70 is substantially water tight). The advantage of having a soap dispenser with a watertight design is to be able to use the dispenser in wet environments, such as bathrooms and showers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Zhao with the invention of Hinuber to provide a soap dispenser with a watertight design.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinuber et al (DE 102021000622) in view of Kroll et al (DE 102022116669) and in further view of Yun Seok (KR 20230126837).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hinuber fails to disclose;
in the solid soap dispenser has a fastening device for fastening the solid soap dispenser to a wall.
However, Yun Seok teaches;
the soap dispenser (Fig. 1, S) has a fastening device (Fig. 1, 10; Fig. 1, 20, & Fig 1, 30 make up the fastening device) for fastening the soap dispenser (Fig. 1, S) to a wall.
The advantage of having a soap dispenser with a fastening device for fastening the dispenser to the wall is to leave the hands of the user free to perform other actions, like washing their hands. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Yun Seok with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that has a fastening device for fastening the solid soap dispenser to a wall.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations in claim 14, Hinuber fails to disclose;
in that the fastening device is made up of a fastening element situated at the housing and a complementary bracket, wherein the bracket may be mounted on a wall using mounting means.
However, Yun Seok teaches;
in that the fastening device is made up of a fastening element (Fig. 1, 20) situated at the housing and a complementary bracket (Fig. 1, 30), wherein the bracket (Fig. 1, 30) may be mounted on a wall using mounting means (Fig. 1, 10).
The advantage of the fastening device having a fastening element situated at the housing is to better secure the soap dispenser when mounting. The advantage of a bracket mountable on a wall is to be able to unmount the bracket for cleaning or relocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Yun Seok with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that has a fastening element situated at the housing and a bracket may be mounted on a wall.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations in claim 15, Hinuber fails to disclose;
in that the bracket has a support surface for supporting shower articles, wherein the support surface preferably has an overflow edge.
However, Yun Seok teaches;
in that the bracket (Fig. 1, 30) has a support surface (see annotated Fig. 1 below depicting the support surface) for supporting shower articles, wherein the support surface preferably has an overflow edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below depicting the overflow edge). The advantage of the bracket having a support surface with an over flow edge is to be able to store extra soap on the support surface and to prevent the soap from sliding off the support surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Yun Seok with the invention of Hinuber to provide a solid soap dispenser that has a bracket with a support surface and an overflow edge.
PNG
media_image6.png
762
1070
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Herman et al (US 5931397) is directed to the state of the art of wall mounted solid soap dispensers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYANT K HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-8630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights