DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroto (KR 20210030856 A) in view of Sennott (US 4453695 A).
Regarding claim 16, Hiroto discloses a shoes care device comprising:
an inner cabinet (20) configured to accommodate shoes therein (Fig. 12);
an opening configured to suck air from inside the inner cabinet (Fig. 4 shows an area Y with an opening for air to enter the base compartment);
a nozzle duct (Figs. 12/13a; 381(2)) defining a passage for the air, the nozzle duct having a first end coupled (coupled at 38b) to the inner cabinet and a second end (Fig. 13a: end connected to attachment 382) spaced from the first end, the nozzle duct protruding into the inner cabinet (Fig. 12);
a nozzle (Figs. 12/13a; 381(3) + 382) having a first end coupled to the second end of the nozzle duct, the nozzle being configured to inject the air into the shoes;
a connection path from the opening to the nozzle (Fig. 4 shows arrows indicating the airflow path);
a blower (Fig. 4, 31) located in the connection path, the blower being configured to move the air from the opening to the nozzle; and
a dehumidifier (Fig. 4, 32) located in the connection path, the dehumidifier being configured to dehumidify the air in the connection path.
Hiroto fails to disclose:
where the first end of the nozzle duct is hinge-coupled to the inner cabinet; and
a nozzle connector having a first end hinge-coupled to the inner cabinet and a second end hinge-coupled to the nozzle at the first end of the nozzle.
Sennott teaches an articulating arm for a hair dryer (Fig. 1), comprising:
a nozzle duct (Fig. 1: one of the arms 26; two arms 26 are shown in Fig. 3) having a first end hinge-coupled (24) to the wall (equivalent to the inner cabinet wall in Hiroto) and a second end spaced from the first end, the nozzle duct protruding from the wall;
a nozzle (Fig. 1; 14+28+30) having a first end hinge-coupled to the second end of the nozzle duct (Fig. 1 shows where arms 26 and 28 are hinge-coupled), the nozzle being configured (i.e., capable) to inject air into the shoes;
a nozzle connector (another one of the arms 26) having a first end hinge-coupled to the wall and a second end hinge-coupled to the nozzle at the first end of the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hiroto where the first end of the nozzle duct is hinge-coupled to the inner cabinet; and to include a nozzle connector having a first end hinge-coupled to the inner cabinet and a second end hinge-coupled to the nozzle at the first end of the nozzle.
With the modification, the extension nozzle (Hiroto, 381) can be mounted to an articulating arm (Sennott; 26+28), e.g., within the articulating arm, so that the discharge end of the nozzle (Hiroto, 381(3)) can be positioned in multiple angles and positions depending on the unique arrangement of the shoes. For example, if the shoes were placed upside down or in a sideways position, the articulating arm could position and hold the nozzle to blow upward or from the side.
Regarding 17, modified Hiroto discloses the shoes care device of claim 16, further comprising a steam generator (Fig. 4 of Hiroto; 60) configured to supply steam to the inner cabinet.
Regarding 18, modified Hiroto discloses the shoes care device of claim 16, wherein a length of the nozzle connector corresponds to a length of the nozzle duct (see rejection of claim 16).
Regarding 32, modified Hiroto discloses the shoes care device of claim 16, further comprising: a shelf support located on a side wall of the inner cabinet (Fig. 12 of Hiroto shows a shelf support supporting the auxiliary shelf 21); and an auxiliary shelf, the auxiliary shelf being detachably supported by the shelf support (see pg. 8 of Hiroto, “In this way, by allowing any one of the partitions to be separated..”).
Regarding 34, modified Hiroto discloses (see Fig. 12 of Hiroto) the shoes care device of claim 32, wherein an upper portion of the first end (38b(2)) of the nozzle duct is located above the shelf support (shelf support of shelf unit 21(3)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-31, 33, 35 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 10 of the Remarks filed on 6/4/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
214
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The modification integrates the extension nozzle (Hiroto, 381) with the articulating arm (Sennott; 26+28). Since the extension nozzle contains a nozzle [Hiroto; 381(3) + 382] and the nozzle is mounted within the articulating arm (28), then it would be reasonable to interpret the combined nozzle [Hiroto; 381(3) + 382] - articulating arm (Senott; 28) assembly (“prior art nozzle”) to be the claimed nozzle.
Similarly, since the modification integrates the nozzle duct [Hiroto, 381(2)] with the articulating arm (Sennott; one of the arms 26), then it would be reasonable to interpret this combination (“prior art nozzle duct”) to be the claimed nozzle duct.
Therefore, the combination reads on the claimed language.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 10 of the Remarks filed on 6/4/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
In the combination, the “prior art nozzle” (which includes Sennott’s articulating arm 28) would be hinge-coupled to the second end of the “prior art nozzle duct” (which includes Sennott’s articulating arm 26), since Sennott teaches a hinge connection between articulating arm 26 and articulating arm 28.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 11 of the Remarks filed on 6/4/2026:
PNG
media_image3.png
80
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The combination discloses this feature since Hiroto discloses a nozzle duct for passage of air and Sennott teaches a hinge connection to a wall.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 11 of the Remarks filed on 6/4/2026:
PNG
media_image4.png
188
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The adjustable support 38 is not part of the proposed modification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights