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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 31-33, 38, 46-47 53, and 59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,232,683 and claims 1, 2, 5, 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,881. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Current application claims 31, 32, 33, 38, 46, 47, 53, 59 are anticipated by claims 1, 2, 5, 6, of US 12,256,881 except for the patent claimed dehumidifying material since all the patent structure and function anticipates all the claimed features. Likewise, claims 1, 2, 17 of US 12,232,683 anticipates claims 31, 31, 46, 47 except for the patent claimed controller configuration since all the patent structure and function anticipates all the claimed features. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the different elements from the patent claimed inventions with the current application claimed features for the purpose of drying shoes and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Claims 31, 32, 46, 47 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 39 of copending Application No. 18/282,483 (reference application) and claims 31, 32, 46, 47 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20, 26 of copending Application No. 18/273,175 (reference application) and claims. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 31, 32, 46, 47 are anticipated by claim 21, 26 of US application 18/282,483 except for the copending claimed module and claims 31, 32, 46, 47 are anticipated by claim 21, 26 of US application 18/273,175 except for the copending claimed module. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the different elements from the patent claimed inventions with the current application claimed features for the purpose of drying shoes and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-60 are allowable over the prior art of record because the shoe device with the connection path, inlet/outlet locations, connection path, blowing fan, and dehumidifier housing or dehumidifying material is not found in the prior art either singly or in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action, may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, C, N, O, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, cited with this action teach shoe devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Wednesday, March 4, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753