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 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.
Claim 10 is 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. Line 5 of claim 10 recites “and a parallelogram shape” whereas the limitation should recite “or a parallelogram shape.”
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnari (WO 2021/049846).
As for claim 1, Ohnari discloses a footwear care apparatus comprising: a heat pump (fig. 19, heat pump components illustrated); a cabinet comprising: a care room formed therein (fig. 19, care room illustrated); and a machine room formed therein, divided from the care room, and configured to accommodate the heat pump (fig. 19, heat pump components illustrated in machine room); a plate configured to divide an inside of the care room and configured to support footwear to be placed on (fig. 19, 3 plates illustrated); a supply duct connecting the machine room to the care room to guide air passed through the heat pump to the care room through the supply duct (fig. 19, illustrated by arrows directed upwardly); a supply port formed on a sidewall of the care room to discharge the air passed through the supply duct to the care room through the supply port (fig. 19, right side, opening upstream of 36 in the vertical wall of care room); a supporter holder formed on the sidewall of the care room, and comprising a holder opening formed therein so that the holder opening is configured to communicate with the supply port to discharge the air passed through the supply duct into the care room (see sketch below); and a supporter mountable to the supporter holder, and having an internal passage formed therein to communicate with the supply port so that based on the supporter being mounted to the supporter holder (see sketch below), the air discharging from the supply port is introduced into the care room through the internal passage, wherein the supporter further includes a partition wall formed in the internal passage to change a direction of the air passing through the internal passage to a downward direction (see sketch below, described as a louvre).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ohnari discloses the claimed invention except for a supporter detachably mountable. However making objects separable or integral has been determined to be no more than obvious with a court finding that if it were considered desirable for any reason to (in this case a supporter detachably mountable) it would be obvious to make the supporter removable for that purpose (please see MPEP 2144.04.V.C). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Ohnari with a supporter detachably mountable because to make the supporter of Ohnari lends itself to modular replaceability which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
As for claim 7, Ohnari discloses the partition wall is formed to extend downward from an upper surface of the internal passage (see sketch above).
As for claim 10, Ohnari discloses the partition wall is formed to extend in a first direction to traverse the internal passage, and a cross-sectional shape of the partition wall with respect to a plane perpendicular to the first direction includes a polygonal shape, a semi-circular shape, a semi-ellipse shape, [and] or a parallelogram shape (see sketch above, semi-circular shape).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 2 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the supporter further includes: a support plate configured to support the foot wear to be placed thereon; and a supporter duct formed at a lower side of the support plate and forming the internal passage with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Incorporating this limitation would destroy the Ohnari reference and thus would not be an obvious combination with any other prior art reference.
Claim 8 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the partition wall has a vertical length of h1 and the internal passage has a vertical width of H, and wherein h1 and H has a relationship according a following formula: h1>Hx 0.6 with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. No prior art could be found to teach this features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762