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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an upstanding stand-alone water pressure supply lever” in line. The amended claim language fails to find support in the specification. Applicant is advised to provide location of support or to cancel the limitation as it constitutes new matter.
Claims 2 – 15 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nappi (U. S. Patent No. 3,066,338) in view of Crist (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0098031 A1) and Bleth (U. S. Patent No. 5,964,959).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Nappi teaches a shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) comprising: a dome lid (cover 14 with the top face is raised in a dome-like, outward protuberance 26; Fig. 1) having a top (20) and a bottom (skirt, 10) and an opening (central opening, 22) for receiving a shoe (central opening 22 for insertion of a shod foot, the opening being located in the upper portion of front face 16) and configured for containing a water spray (spray system with spray nozzles, 196; Fig. 3) therein; a base (base plate, 12) attached to the dome lid bottom (Fig. 6) in a water tight seal (Col. 2, lines 29 – 36) and comprising a drain (opening, 190) at an opening of the base (12); a water pressure supply lever (button, 38) configured to control a water flow across a water valve to a water supply via a rotational motion (Col. 4, line 67 – Col. 5, line 2); and a water sprayer (nozzles, 196; Fig. 3) in connection with the water flow and in an inside created by the dome lid and the base and underneath the opening in the dome (26; Fig. 3).
Nappi teaches a base plate but fails to explicitly teach a funnel base and a narrow opening of the funnel base.
Crist, however, teaches a funnel base (36; Fig. 2) and a narrow opening (40) of the funnel base (36; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Nappi to further include a funnel base and a narrow opening, as taught by Crist, to provide a device that directs the dirty water away from the cleaned surface, thus preventing recontamination.
Further, Although Nappi teaches a water pressure supply lever, the reference fails to explicitly teach an upstanding stand-alone water pressure supply lever configured to bidirectionally control how much water flow and head pressure are put a water valve via a manual rotation motion.
Bleth, however, teaches an upstanding stand-alone water pressure supply lever (49’; Fig. 7) configured to bidirectionally control how much water flow and head pressure are put a water valve via a manual rotation motion (Col. 5, lines 6 – 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Nappi to further include an upstanding stand-alone water pressure supply lever configured to bidirectionally control how much water flow and head pressure are put a water valve via a manual rotation motion, as taught by Bleth, to provide a device that the pressure thus assuring the shoes are properly wet for cleaning and avoiding saturation.
Regarding Claim 2, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1), further comprising a handle (35; Fig. 1) configured to enable a pickup and delivery of the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1), further comprising a water hose (pipe system, 198) configured for a transport of the water supply to the water valve (Fig. 3; Col. 4, line 56 – Col. 5, line 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi as modified by Crist teaches support legs (flanges, 39) does not explicitly teach the shoe cleaning device further comprising adjustable height support legs attached to the funnel base, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nappi as modified by Crist to further include adjustable height support legs attached to the funnel base, as claimed, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) wherein the drain (190) is connected to a waste pipe (drawer, 186) to convey a waste water collected in the base (12) therefrom (Fig. 5).
Nappi teaches a base plate but fails to explicitly teach a funnel base.
Crist, however, teaches a funnel base (36; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Nappi to further include a funnel base and a narrow opening, as taught by Crist, to provide a device that directs the dirty water away from the cleaned surface, thus preventing recontamination.
Regarding Claim 7, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) wherein the pressure supply lever (38) is configured to turn off and turn on the water flow (Col. 4, line 67 – Col. 5, line 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) further comprising a brush (brushes 42 – 44) on the inside of the device and to enable a brushing of a bottom of the shoe (Figs. 2 – 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi does not explicitly teach the dome lid comprises a transparent material to enable a view of the inside of the dome lid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nappi to further include the dome lid comprises a transparent material, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the device (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) wherein the opening comprises a scraping lip (tabs, 28 and 30) configured for scraping a debris from a sole of the shoe (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi does not teach the shoe cleaning device further comprising a shutoff valve disposed at the drain and configured to prevent leakage from the device.
Bleth, however, teaches a shutoff valve (49) disposed at the drain (39) and configured to prevent leakage from the device (Col. 4, line 69 – Col. 5, line 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Nappi to further include a shutoff valve, as taught by Bleth, to provide a device that prevents leakage from the device
Regarding Claim 12, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi does not explicitly teach, wherein the water sprayer is adjustable to a sole size of a shoe; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nappi as modified by Crist to further include the water sprayer is adjustable to a sole size of a shoe, as claimed, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi, as modified by Crist, does not explicitly teach the funnel base comprises a metal to transfer a dislodging force to remove a dry debris thereon; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nappi as modified by Crist to further include the water sprayer is adjustable to a sole size of a shoe, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the device (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 14, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) further comprising a plurality of water sprayers (196) configured to spray a sole of the shoe from multiple angles (Fig. 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nappi (U. S. Patent No. 3,066,338) in view of Crist (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0098031 A1), Ma (CN 109176999A) and Bleth (U. S. Patent No. 5,964,959).
Regarding Claim 6, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi does not teach the shoe cleaning device further comprising a water deflecting flap configured to close in an absence of a shoe in the dome opening.
Ma, however, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) further comprising a water deflecting flap (door; Claim 8) configured to close in an absence of a shoe in the opening (Claim 8; Ma teaches a flap configured to close, thus it teaches the flap configured to or capable of closing in an absence of a shoe in the opening).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Nappi to further include a water deflecting flap, as taught by Ma, to provide a device that directs the prevents water from escaping the cleaner in the event that a shoe is not inserted in the device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nappi (U. S. Patent No. 3,066,338) in view of Crist (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0098031 A1), Tendall (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0280017 A1) and Bleth (U. S. Patent No. 5,964,959).
Regarding Claim 15, Nappi, as modified, teaches the shoe cleaning device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nappi does not teach the shoe cleaning device further comprising a filter in the drain configured to prevent debris from entering the drain.
Tendall, however, teaches the shoe cleaning device (Fig. 1) further comprising a filter (Paragraph [0015]) in the drain (105) configured to prevent debris from entering the drain (Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Nappi to further include a filter in the drain configured to prevent debris from entering the drain, as taught by Tendall, to provide a device that directs the dirty particles away from the cleaned surface, thus preventing recontamination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated January 22, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Bleth (art used in the rejection of claim 11)
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723