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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the respective claims of Group I and Group II overlap in scope and recite common technical features, therefore there is no unreasonable search burden. This is found persuasive.
The requirement is deemed improper and is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 9 recites the limitation “the second dictation zone”. Line 2 of claim 9 should say “the second detection zone”.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 14 recites the limitation “the second dictation zone”. Line 2 of claim 14 should say “the second detection zone”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al (US 20200281417).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer discloses,
A soap dispenser (Fig. 1, 10) comprising:
a dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) configured to be supported above a mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16) and including an outlet (Fig. 2, 38);
a mounting shank operably (see annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled to the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) and configured to extend downwardly from the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) through the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16);
a soap reservoir (Fig. 1, 18) fluidly coupled to the dispensing spout and configured to hold liquid soap below the mounting deck;
a pump (Fig. 1, 20) fluidly coupled to the soap reservoir (Fig. 1, 18) for pumping liquid soap to the outlet (Fig. 2, 38) of the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12), the pump (Fig. 1, 20) configured to be supported below the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16);
a sensor (Fig. 2, 44) supported by the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) and configured to provide an output signal when a user is within a detection area near the dispensing spout ([0037]; the sensor 44 is in electrical communication with the controller, therefore it provides an output signal to the controller when a user is within a detection area);
and a controller (Fig. 2, element 21 the control box houses a controller) in electrical communication with the sensor ([0037]) and positioned below the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16), the controller configured to receive the output signal from the sensor and to activate the pump to dispense liquid soap in response to the output signal ([0037 & 0042]; the sensor 44 is in electrical communication with the controller, therefore it provides an output signal that the controller receives. Upon activation of the sensor, soap is dispensed. The sensor is not in electrical communication with the pump, therefore, when the sensor is activated, it sends a signal to the controller which actuates the pump to dispense liquid soap).
PNG
media_image1.png
1087
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Meyer discloses,
a soap supply tube (Fig. 2, 46) external to the mounting shank and fluidly coupled between the pump (Fig. 1, 20) and the dispensing spout (Fig. 1, 12; see annotated Fig 1 below depicting the soap supply tube 46 being external to the mounting shank and fluidly coupled between the pump 20 and dispensing spout 12);
and a soap refill passageway (Fig. 2 58) defined within the mounting shank (see annotated Fig. 2 above) and including an inlet (Fig. 2, 66) positioned above the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16) and an outlet (Fig. 2 60) positioned below the inlet (Fig. 2, 66) and in fluid communication with the soap reservoir ([0039]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1261
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 2, Meyer discloses,
a mount (Fig. 2, 68) supported by the mounting shank and defining the inlet (Fig. 2, 66);
and a releasable coupler (Fig. 2, 30) defined between a lower end of the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) and the mount (Fig. 2, 68) of the mounting shank.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Meyer discloses,
a battery in electrical communication with the controller and configured to be supported below the mounting deck ([0033]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Meyer discloses,
wherein the pump (Fig. 1, 20) and the controller (the controller is housed in the control box 21) are received within a control box (Fig. 1, 21) under the mounting deck.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 20200281417) in view of Burgo Sr. et al (US 20150101121).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Meyer discloses,
a light indicator (Fig. 2, 32) in electrical communication ([0040]) with the controller (Fig. 1, element 21 a control box houses the controller).
Meyer does not disclose,
a light indicator supported by the dispensing spout.
However, Burgo Sr. teaches,
a light indicator (Fig. 1, 124) supported by the dispensing spout (Fig. 1, 104).
The advantage of having a light indicator supported by the dispensing spout is that the light indicator is easier to see and the light indicator and dispensing spout can be one compact unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Burgo Sr. with the invention of Meyer to provide a light indicator supported by the dispensing spout.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 20200281417) in view of Farahat et al (US 20180049601).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Meyer discloses,
a sensor (Fig. 2, 44).
Meyer does not disclose,
wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor including an emitter and a receiver.
However, Farahat teaches,
wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor (fig. 1, 7A & 7B) including an emitter and a receiver ([0148]).
Meyer discloses a proximity sensor but fails to show the specific type of sensor used and thus fails to show wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor including an emitter and a receiver. The selection of a known feature that produces the expected result would fall under routine skill in the art. In the instant case, Farahat teaches that an infrared sensor using an emitter and receiver is a suitable proximity sensor for a dispenser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Farahat with the invention of Meyer to provide an infrared sensor including an emitter and a receiver.
Claims 7 – 9, 12 – 14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 20200281417) in view of Greenberg et al (US 20220017350).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Meyer discloses,
a controller (Fig. 1, element 21 the control box houses the controller)
Meyer does not disclose,
wherein the controller includes a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, the controller selecting the operating mode based upon the position of the user within the detection area and the duration of the user within the detection area.
However, Greenberg teaches,
wherein the controller (Fig. 1, 24) includes a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, the controller selecting the operating mode based upon the position of the user within the detection area (Fig. 1, elements 104, 106 & 108 make up the detection area) and the duration of the user within the detection area ([0043 & 0044]; the controller can select between a dispensing mode and a cleaning mode, i.e. a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, based on the position and duration of an object in the detection area).
The advantage of a controller that has a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode is that it provides a user with more options when using the controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Greenberg with the invention of Meyer to provide a controller with a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, the controller selecting the operating mode based upon the position and duration of the user within the detection area.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations in claim 7, Meyer does not disclose,
wherein the detection area includes a first detection zone and a second detection zone, the second detection zone closer to the sensor than the first detection zone, the first detection zone defining the normal operating mode and the second detection zone defining the anti-clog operating mode.
However, Greenberg teaches,
wherein the detection area (Fig. 1, 104, 106 & 108) includes a first detection zone (Fig. 1, 106) and a second detection zone (Fig. 1, 104), the second detection zone closer to the sensor than the first detection zone, the first detection zone defining the normal operating mode and the second detection zone defining the anti-clog operating mode. ([0043 & 0044]; the controller can select between a dispensing mode and a cleaning mode, i.e. a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, based on the position and duration of an object in the detection area).
The advantage of a detection area having a first and second detection zone, the first detection zone defining the normal operating mode and the second detection zone defining the anti-clog operating mode, is to provide the user with more options when using the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Greenberg with the invention of Meyer to provide a detection area having a first and second detection zone.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations in claim 8, Meyer as modified by Greenberg teaches,
wherein the first detection zone (Fig. 1, 106) is defined by a long-range infrared sensor, and the second dictation zone (Fig. 1, 104) is defined by a near-range infrared sensor (the infrared sensor 26 can detect objects in a first detection zone 106 and a second detection zone 104. The first detection zone is further away from the sensor than the second detection zone. Since the sensor 26 can detect objects in both zones, it is capable of being a long range and short-range infrared sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Meyer discloses,
A soap dispenser (Fig. 1, 10) comprising:
a dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) configured to be supported above a mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16) and including an outlet (Fig. 2, 38);
a soap reservoir (Fig. 1, 18) fluidly coupled to the dispensing spout and configured to hold liquid soap below the mounting deck;
a pump (Fig. 1, 20) fluidly coupled to the soap reservoir (Fig. 1, 18) for pumping liquid soap to the outlet (Fig. 2, 38) of the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12), the pump (Fig. 1, 20) configured to be supported below the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16);
a sensor (Fig. 2, 44) supported by the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12) and configured to provide an output signal when a user is within a detection area near the dispensing spout ([0037]; the sensor 44 is in electrical communication with the controller, therefore it provides an output signal to the controller when a user is within a detection area);
and a controller (Fig. 2, element 21 the control box houses a controller) in electrical communication with the sensor ([0037]) and positioned below the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16), the controller configured to receive the output signal from the sensor and to activate the pump to dispense liquid soap in response to the output signal ([0037 & 0042]; the sensor 44 is in electrical communication with the controller, therefore it provides an output signal that the controller receives. Upon activation of the sensor, soap is dispensed. The sensor is not in electrical communication with the pump, therefore, when the sensor is activated, it sends a signal to the controller which actuates the pump to dispense liquid soap).
Meyer does not disclose,
wherein the controller includes a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, the controller selecting the operating mode based upon the position of the user within the detection area and the duration of the user within the detection area.
However, Greenberg teaches,
wherein the controller (Fig. 1, 24) includes a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, the controller selecting the operating mode based upon the position of the user within the detection area (Fig. 1, elements 104, 106 & 108 make up the detection area) and the duration of the user within the detection area ([0043 & 0044]; the controller can select between a dispensing mode and a cleaning mode, i.e. a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, based on the position and duration of an object in the detection area).
The advantage of a controller that has a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode is that it provides a user with more options when using the controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Greenberg with the invention of Meyer to provide a controller with a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, the controller selecting the operating mode based upon the position and duration of the user within the detection area.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations in claim 12, does not disclose,
wherein the detection area includes a first detection zone and a second detection zone, the second detection zone closer to the sensor than the first detection zone, the first detection zone defining the normal operating mode and the second detection zone defining the anti-clog operating mode.
However, Greenberg teaches,
wherein the detection area (Fig. 1, 104, 106 & 108) includes a first detection zone (Fig. 1, 106) and a second detection zone (Fig. 1, 104), the second detection zone closer to the sensor than the first detection zone, the first detection zone defining the normal operating mode and the second detection zone defining the anti-clog operating mode. ([0043 & 0044]; the controller can select between a dispensing mode and a cleaning mode, i.e. a normal operating mode and an anti-clog operating mode, based on the position and duration of an object in the detection area).
The advantage of a detection area having a first and second detection zone, the first detection zone defining the normal operating mode and the second detection zone defining the anti-clog operating mode, is to provide the user with more options when using the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Greenberg with the invention of Meyer to provide a detection area having a first and second detection zone.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Meyer as modified by Greenberg teaches,
wherein the first detection zone (Fig. 1, 106) is defined by a long-range infrared sensor, and the second dictation zone (Fig. 1, 104) is defined by a near-range infrared sensor (the infrared sensor 26 can detect objects in a first detection zone 106 and a second detection zone 104. The first detection zone is further away from the sensor than the second detection zone. Since the sensor 26 can detect objects in both zones, it is capable of being a long range and short-range infrared sensor).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations in claim 12, Meyer discloses,
a mounting shank (see annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled to the dispensing spout (Fig. 2, 12)
a soap supply tube (Fig. 2, 46) external to the mounting shank and fluidly coupled between the pump (Fig. 1, 20) and the dispensing spout (Fig. 1, 12; see annotated Fig 1 below depicting the soap supply tube 46 being external to the mounting shank and fluidly coupled between the pump 20 and dispensing spout 12);
and a soap refill passageway (Fig. 2 58) defined within the mounting shank (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and including an inlet (Fig. 2, 66) positioned above the mounting deck (Fig. 2, 16) and an outlet (Fig. 2 60) positioned below the inlet (Fig. 2, 66) and in fluid communication with the soap reservoir ([0039]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1261
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
1087
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 20200281417) in view of Greenberg et al (US 20220017350) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Burgo Sr. et al (US 20150101121).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations in claim 12, Meyer discloses,
a light indicator (Fig. 2, 32) in electrical communication ([0040]) with the controller (Fig. 1, element 21 a control box houses the controller), the light indicator configured to provide an indication of the operating mode of the controller ([0052]).
Meyer does not disclose,
a light indicator supported by the dispensing spout.
However, Burgo Sr. teaches,
a light indicator (Fig. 1, 124) supported by the dispensing spout (Fig. 1, 104).
The advantage of having a light indicator supported by the dispensing spout is that the light indicator is easier to see and the light indicator and dispensing spout can be one compact unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Burgo Sr. with the invention of Meyer to provide a light indicator supported by the dispensing spout.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 20200281417) in view of Greenberg et al (US 20220017350) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Farahat et al (US 20180049601).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations in claim 18, Meyer discloses,
a sensor (Fig. 2, 44).
Meyer does not disclose,
wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor including an emitter and a receiver.
However, Farahat teaches,
wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor (fig. 1, 7A & 7B) including an emitter and a receiver ([0148]).
Farahat further teaches that, although an infrared sensor is shown, any known proximity sensor such as a capacitive sensor may be used ([0148]). Meyers specifies that the sensor disclosed in their invention is a proximity sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have incorporated the teachings of Farahat with the invention of Meyer to provide an infrared sensor including an emitter and a receiver because it is simply a substitution of one functionally equivalent part for another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 – 24 are allowed.
Claims 10 & 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references, alone or in combination, teaches the missing limitation, wherein the controller in the normal operating mode will cause the pump to dispense liquid soap for a first duration and the controller in the anti-clog operating mode will cause the pump to dispense liquid soap for a second duration, the second duration is greater than the first duration. The closest reference would be Meyer et al (US 20200281417), which teaches a soap dispensing system with a sensor configured to be mounted on a mounting deck, but does not provide any teachings of dispensing liquid soap for a first and second duration when the controller is in the normal and anti-clog operating modes respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. US Patent 20150313421 A1 is direct to the state of sensor 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
