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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0313061 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 24, Kim discloses a shoe care device (1) comprising:
an inner cabinet (30) configured to accommodate a shoe therein;
an outlet (31) configured to suction air from the inner cabinet;
an inlet (below path 71 and feeding into duct 70) configured to discharge air into the inner cabinet;
a connection path connecting the outlet to the inlet (see bottom portion of Fig. 3);
a blower (44) configured to generate airflow in the connection path; and
a dehumidifying block (condenser 43) including a dehumidifying material, the dehumidifying block having an inner space bordered by the dehumidifying material (note the inside of the condenser 43 is made of a material capable of performing dehumidifying of air),
wherein the connection path includes a first path defined by the inner space of the dehumidifying block (see air pathway passing through condenser 43) and a second path (downwind of condenser 43) defined by an outer space of the dehumidifying block such that air in the first path passes through the dehumidifying block to flow to the second path (note airflow through condenser 43 and in a path towards the inside of the cabinet).
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 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.
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2015/0020398 to Bae et al. (“Bae”).
Regarding claims 45-46, Kim discloses the claimed invention including plural sections connected between the inlet and outlet, including a blower and dehumidifying block. Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the shoe care device further comprises: a regeneration path configured to cause air having passed through the dehumidifying material to move therethrough and to diverge from the third section of the connection path; and a damper configured to selectively shield the third section and the regeneration path. Bae teaches an art-related drying device incorporating a section having a damper housing and damper (7) for supplying air circulating by the blower to be selectively controlled through a condensation passage and moisture absorption passage.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the air flow passage of Kim with a damper path, such as that taught in Bae, in order to control airflow and selectively shield the air flow passage through a regeneration path as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-44 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711