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 Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 15 of claim 39 recites “the machine room”, which had not previously been introduced in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “dehumidifying material” in claims 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, and 39.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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) 20-24, 26-28, and 30-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021049846 A1 to Ohnari et al. (Ohnari) in view of EP 3022352 B1 to Bae et al. (Bae).
In reference to independent claim 20, Ohnari discloses:
A shoe care device (1) comprising:
an inner cabinet (20(1) to 20(3)) configured to accommodate a shoe (see Fig. 1) therein;
an outlet (see Fig. 4, at deodorizing device 50) configured to suction air from the inner cabinet;
an inlet (36(1) to 36(3)) configured to discharge air into the inner cabinet;
a connection path (30, 34, 35) connecting the outlet to the inlet; and
a sump (71) configured to accommodate condensate water therein.
Ohnari is silent regarding at least one dehumidifying material located in the connection path; a heater configured to heat the at least one dehumidifying material; the sump (71) being located below the at least one dehumidifying material; a regeneration path configured to divert air passing through the at least one dehumidifying material from the connection path to the sump; and a condenser defining a portion of the regeneration path, the condenser being located lower than the at least one dehumidifying material and higher than the sump.
Bae teaches a drying machine (1) for drying clothes including a flow path (see Fig. 3) in which a dehumidifying material (desiccant 50) is located; the drying machine (1) further includes a heater (heat exchanger 4) that is used to both condense high humidity air and use residual heat to regenerate the desiccant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shoe care device of Ohnari with the desiccant, connecting passage, and heater of the drying machine of Bae as they are both directed to appliances for drying apparel and doing so would have yielded the predictable results of enhancing drying performance by allowing for removal of moisture while providing energy-efficient mode of operation.
In reference to dependent claims 21-23, Ohnari and Bae are silent regarding constructional features of the condenser and regeneration path. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent criticality of unexpected results, to have constructed and arranged the condenser and regeneration path as desired in the device of Ohnari depending on the needs of the device.
In reference to dependent claim 24, Bae further teaches a first section connected to the outlet (31), a second section (51), a third section (33), and a damper (7) controlling passage of the flow.
In reference to dependent claim 26, Bae further teaches a suction duct defining a first portion of the connection path, the suction duct being connected to the outlet (see Fig. 3); a blowing duct defining a second portion of the connection path, the blowing duct providing an air passage through which air is supplied to the at least one dehumidifying material (see Fig. 3); and a blower (30) defining a third portion of the connection path, the blower connecting the suction duct to the blowing duct, the blower being configured to generate airflow in the connection path (see Fig. 3).
In reference to dependent claim 27, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the sump in the lower portion of the suction duct (see Fig. 3) for collecting and storing condensate generated from the heat exchanger (4) taught by Bae.
In reference to dependent claim 28, Ohnari and Bae are silent regarding the suction duct being located between the condenser and the heater such that the suction duct shields the heater from the condenser. Bae teaches a moisture absorption unit (5) (see Fig. 2) includes a moisture absorption portion (51) and a renewable portion (52), the two portions passing through the desiccant (50), the two portions being separated (see Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the suction duct between the condenser and the heater to separate the two functions as taught by Bae.
In reference to dependent claim 30, Ohnari further discloses a steam generator (60) (see Fig. 2; steam generator 60 is provided in the circulation flow path 30 and generates steam in the circulation flow path 30) configured to supply steam into the inner cabinet; a machine room located under the inner cabinet (bottom side of main body 10; see Fig. 2), the machine room accommodating the connection path (see Fig. 2), the at least one dehumidifying material, the heater, the sump, the regeneration path, the condenser, and the steam generator therein; a water supply tank (72) located in front of the machine room (see Fig. 1), the water supply tank being configured to store water supplied to the steam generator therein; and a drain tank (71) located in front of the machine room (see Fig. 2), the drain tank being configured to store the water drained from the sump therein.
In reference to dependent claim 31, Ohnari and Bae are silent regarding the condenser contacting an inner surface of a left or side right of the machine room. However, the location or arrangement of the condenser would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to dependent claim 32, Ohnari further discloses a door (11) configured to expose or shield a front side of the inner cabinet, the water supply tank, and the drain tank (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 33, Ohnari further discloses a steam hole (at 34) on the bottom of the inner cabinet (see Fig. 4) through which steam generated by the steam generator is supplied into the inner cabinet, wherein the steam hole (at 34) is located opposite to the outlet (at 50)and adjacent to the inlet on the bottom of the inner cabinet (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Ohnari and Bae are silent regarding the orientation of the outlet and inlet with respect to each other. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent criticality of unexpected results, to have oriented the inlet and outlet as desired in the device of Ohnari depending on the needs of the device.
In reference to dependent claims 34-37, Ohnari and Bae are further silent regarding the arrangement and orientation of the outlet, the inlet, the at least one dehumidifying material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent criticality of unexpected results, to have oriented and arranged these features as desired in the device of Ohnari depending on the needs of the device.
In reference to dependent claim 38, Ohnari further discloses the bottom of the inner cabinet is arranged such that the front thereof is inclined downwards (see Figs. 2 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1142
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to independent claim 39, Ohnari and Bae teaches the subject matter of the claim (see rejections of claims 20 and 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 29 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in reference to claim 25, Bae further teaches a damper housing (not shown, but a damper would inherently include a housing or casing) defining the third section (33) (see Fig. 3), the damper housing accommodating the damper therein (inherent), but the prior art does not disclose or teach the damper housing having a regeneration path hole defining an entrance to the regeneration path on a bottom of the damper housing, wherein the damper is configured to selectively shield the inside of the damper housing and the regeneration path hole; and in reference to claim 29, the prior art does not disclose or teach “the outlet is located at an edge of a bottom of the inner cabinet, wherein the suction duct includes an upper duct extending downward from the outlet, a middle duct extending downward from the upper duct and bent inward, and a lower duct extending downward from the middle duct to be connected to the blower, and wherein the lower duct is located between the condenser and the blower”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights