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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “260” has been used to designate both a strap and a heel portion in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in WIPO on 06/02/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/IB2021/054822 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Applicant has submitted two different specifications on January 20, 2022. The Examiner is unclear which specification is the desired specification. The Examiner will utilize the published application (US 2024/0008711) as the relied upon specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The Applicant has submitted two different claim sets on January 20, 2022 without clarification as to which claim set is the desired claim set for examination. The Examiner will rely on the claim set that runs from claims 1-15 and is shown in the published PG Pub US 2024/0008711.
Claim 1 recites “a third shelf located below the second shelf, the third shelf comprising an open shelf intend to provide” which should read “a third shelf located below the second shelf, the third shelf comprising an open shelf intended to provide”.
Claim 2 recites “the drawers” which should read “the at least one drawer ”
Claims 3-15 are objected to as being dependent from an objected to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-15 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.
Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 each recite “the slippers” where the Examiner is unclear if these slippers are referring back to the sanitized slippers or if they are new slippers. A review of the specification has shown that the slippers of claims 12-15 are referring back to the sanitized slippers and therefore will be interpreted as such.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051959 (Alghamdi hereinafter) in view of US 5369892 (Dhaemers hereinafter) in view of US 5984113 (Roberson hereinafter) and further in view of US 6651288 (Hackett hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Alghamdi teaches a footwear rack that discloses a frame, the frame comprising a front, a back, a top, a bottom, four sides, and four legs (Figures 1 and 11 show the boxed frame and legs [Figure 11]); a first shelf located closest to the top of the frame, the first shelf comprising an open area intended to hold non-sanitized footwear for exposure to air (upper shelves at 120 as seen in Figures 1 and 2 along with Figure 10 per ¶ 47); a second shelf located below the first shelf, with one or more doors intended to hold non-sanitized footwear for sanitizing via exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from one or more UV lamps ( any arbitrary shelf 120 below the top shelves in Figures 1 and 2 aired with the UV lights taught in ¶ 47); a third shelf located below the second shelf, the third shelf comprising an open shelf intend to provide access to sanitized slippers and the opening between the second shelf and the third shelf defining a shoe compartment (Any shelf 120 below the second shelves as described above and already being treated by the UV lights); a motorized conveyor mechanism positioned between the second shelf and the third shelf (Conveyor mechanism 200 per ¶ 37-47), the motorized conveyor mechanism comprising a plurality of hooks mounted on a moveable conveyor track to hold sanitized slippers (Broadest reasonable interpretation of the beads 217 on the conveyor system to interface with 126 as seen in Figures 3 and 7-9), the track positioned such that at least one pair of sanitized slippers is accessible from shoe compartment (Evident form the structure shown in Figures 1 and 11).
Alghamdi is silent with respect to drying via exposure to a hot air blower fan driving hot air into the frame through an output end of a hose.
However, Dhaemers teaches a drying cabinet that discloses drying via exposure to a hot air blower fan driving hot air into the frame through an output end of a hose (Fan 74 with heater 73 as seen ion Figure 6 with hose formed between 74/73 leading into the equivalent first shelf at and above 49 in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air flow being applied in Alghamdi with the heated airflow of Dhaemers to increase drying and treatment of shoes.
Alghamdi is silent with respect to the second shelf comprising a closed shelf, sanitizing via exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from one or more UV lamps including one or more UV lamps located at the output end of the hose.
However, Roberson teaches a shoe storage and conveyor system that discloses a closed shelf for a pair of shoes (Figures 1, 2, and 4 where each shoe pair is within a self contained housing). The resultant combination would modify the shelves of Alghamdi with the housings of Roberson such that to the second shelf comprising a closed shelf, sanitizing via exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from one or more UV lamps including one or more UV lamps located at the output end of the hose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the open shelves of Alghamdi with the closed containers of Roberson to ensure that shoe pairs are kept together and not mistakenly knocked apart from each other.
Alghamdi is silent with respect to at least one drawer positioned below the third shelf, the drawer moveable from a closed position to an open position relative to the front of the frame.
However, Hackett teaches a ground based shoe sanitizing device that discloses at least one drawer positioned below the third shelf, the drawer moveable from a closed position to an open position relative to the front of the frame (Figures 1 and 3 with the box cover 10 over the treatment areas 18/20 and Figure 3 showing the box being a top open drawer). The resultant combination would place the box 10 of Hackett at the bottom of the frame of Alghamdi and allow for the box 10 to be pulled out from ender the frame of Alghamdi to sanitize shows before entry into the rack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to equip the device of Alghamdi with the sanitizer of Hackett to all for an initial cleaning of the shoes prior to entry into the rack.
Regarding claim 2, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Alghamdi and Hackett would further disclose that the drawers further comprise a footwear sanitizing station one or more of: a tray submerged in a sanitizing liquid and a carpet-like surface saturated in a sanitizing liquid (Hackett discloses 18 being treated with a liquid sanitizer).
Regarding claim 3, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Alghamdi and Roberson would further disclose that the conveyor track moves in a vertical loop behind the shoe compartment (Alghamdi teaches a fetch style of conveyor system and Roberson discloses a traditional vertical loop system [Figures 1-3]). The resultant combination would utilize a vertical conveyor in place of system of Alghamdi to allow for multiple pairs of shoes to be retrieved at once.
Regarding claim 4, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Alghamdi and Dhaemers would further disclose that the door covering the shoe compartment is comprised of one of: one glass door, two glass doors, a fiberglass door, a metal door and a wood door (Dhaemers in Column 13 Lines 17-33 discloses the use of plastic or wood to build the treatment structure and therefore would be applied to the combination of claim 1 and the doors as disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Alghamdi and Roberson would further disclose one or more electric motor systems to operate the motorized conveyor mechanism (Electric motors 221/231 as controlled by electric control unit 116 of Alghamdi which would now control the loop conveyor of Roberson applied to Alghamdi).
Regarding claim 8, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Alghamdi further discloses that the hygienic footwear equipment rack is rated for use in one or more of the following locations: a hospital, a clinic, a religious institution, a domestic residence, an office, a mall, a hotel and a community center (¶ 5 of Alghamdi).
Regarding claim 9, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Alghamdi further discloses that the hygienic footwear equipment rack is placed indoors proximate to an entry point to an indoor location (Alghamdi ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 10, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Alghamdi and Dhaemers would further disclose a timer switch operative to active the air blower fan for a predetermined period of time (Timer 103 of Dhaemers in Figure 4)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051959 (Alghamdi) in view of US 5369892 (Dhaemers) in view of US 5984113 (Roberson) in view of US 6651288 (Hackett) and further in view of US 2016/0175896 (Montgomery hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect to a foot paddle located exterior to the frame operative to control the motorized conveyor mechanism.
However, Montgomery teaches a shoe sterilization system that discloses operation via a foot pedal (¶ 49-50 with Figure 1 and pedal 32). The resultant combination would be such that there is a foot paddle located exterior to the frame operative to control the motorized conveyor mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control of the conveyor mechanism of Alghamdi with the foot pedal controller of Montgomery to minimize the need for a user to need their hands for operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051959 (Alghamdi) in view of US 5369892 (Dhaemers) in view of US 5984113 (Roberson) in view of US 6651288 (Hackett) and further in view of US 2014/0305470 (Desu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a hand held remote control unit operative to control one or more of: the hot air blower fan, the UV lamps, the door, the drawer and the motorized conveyor mechanism.
However, Desu teaches a foot cleaning device that discloses the use of a handheld remote control device to operate the cleaner (¶ 30). The resultant combination would be such that there is a hand held remote control unit operative to control one or more of: the hot air blower fan, the UV lamps, the door, the drawer and the motorized conveyor mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation of Alghamdi with the remote controller of Desu to allow the user to remotely control the treatment rack without needing to physically be at the treatment rack.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051959 (Alghamdi) in view of US 5369892 (Dhaemers) in view of US 5984113 (Roberson) in view of US 6651288 (Hackett) and further in view of US 5813547 (Rice hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the hooks are comprised of one or more of: plastic hooks, metal hooks, magnetic hooks and magnetic strips.
However, Rice teaches a shoe holding and moving system that discloses the use of a metal for holding the shoes (Column 3 Lines 29-31 discloses 38 as metallic). The resultant combination would be such that the hooks of Alghamdi are metallic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unknown material of 217 in Alghamdi with the metal taught in Rice to increase stiffness and give the inherent strength of metal.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051959 (Alghamdi) in view of US 5369892 (Dhaemers) in view of US 5984113 (Roberson) in view of US 6651288 (Hackett) and further in view of CN 203523891 (Zhang hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the sanitized slippers each comprise one or more extendible, telescopic bars such that the slippers are expandable in length between heel and toe to adjust the slippers to a size between US 4 and US 13.
However, Zhang teaches an adjustable slipper that discloses one or more extendible, telescopic bars such that the slippers are expandable in length between heel and toe to adjust the slippers to a size (Bars 4 in Figures 1-4 customize the length of the slipper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the available shoes of Alghamdi with the sizable slippers of Zhang to allow for multiple users to be able to use a single slipper design and reducing the need for custom sizings.
The combination of Alghamdi and Zhang is silent with respect to the slipper being able to be sized from US 4 through US 13 however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the slipper to account for this size range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The discovery of the size ranges would be a result effective variable when designing the slipper and adjustable bars to account for the vast majority of a population.
Regarding claim 13, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Alghamdi and Zhang would further disclose that the slippers further comprise at least three layers of bonded material attached to the telescopic bars (Zhang Figures 1-4 with the layers shown attached to the bars 4).
Regarding claim 14, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Alghamdi and Zhang would further disclose that the slippers further comprise a piece of molded material attached to the telescopic bars (Zhang Figures 1-4 with the layers shown attached to the bars 4).
Regarding claim 15, Alghamdi’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Alghamdi, Dhaemers, and Zhang would further disclose the frame, the first shelf, the second shelf, the third shelf, the drawer, the slippers and any other components of the hygienic footwear equipment rack are comprised of one or more hygienic and sanitizable materials, including one or more of: plastic, metal, glass, wood, fiberglass and combinations thereof (Dhaemers in Column 13 Lines 17-33 discloses the use of plastic or wood to build the treatment structure and therefore would be applied to the combination of claim 1 and the structure as disclosed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7036178 discloses a shoe cleaning and conveyor system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762