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.
Claims 1-11 are 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. Claim 1 is construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the inflow,” “the sole” (plural occurrences), “the foot” (plural occurrences), “the outflow,” “the air inflow openings,” “the lateral holes,” “the sides,” and “the instep” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 1 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “it” does not make clear which earlier structure or function is referenced. Since claims 2-11 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 2 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the presence” and “the foot” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 3 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the shortest distance” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 5 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the interior,” “the area,” and “the air inflow opening” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 6 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the inflowing air” and “the air inflow opening” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 7 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the air outflow holes” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claims 8 and 9 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the horizontal plane” and/or “the inclination lack a positive antecedent basis. Claims 10 and 11 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the foot” lacks a positive antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 5,613,304) in view of Herbert (US 6,327,792). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Lin as teaching:
a device for drying feet and/or footwear (see title and abstract), comprising:
a casing 1, 2 with at least one opening 17 for the inflow of air into the casing;
an upper surface (column 2 lines 17-18) of the casing for receiving the sole of the foot and/or footwear comprising at least one lower hole for the outflow of air from inside the casing so as to come into contact with the sole of the foot and/or footwear (figures 10, 11 and column 1 lines 9-26);
lateral walls 9 projecting from the upper surface, each lateral wall comprising at least two lateral holes for the outflow of air from inside the casing (figures 3, 4) and
a motor 12 that absorbs air through the air inflow opening in order to expel it through the air outflow holes,
characterized in that wherein the lateral holes are located with respect to the upper surface of the casing to expel the air over the sides and the instep of the foot and/or footwear (figures 3, 4). Lin also discloses the claim 4 feature in that wherein the upper surface of the casing has a concave curved shape (column 2 line 39), the claim 5 feature in that wherein the interior of the casing undergoes a progressive narrowing from the area of the motor to the air outflow holes (figures 4, 11), the 6 feature in that elements for cleaning the inflowing air between the air inflow opening and the motor (wherein the disclosed air flowing meets the claimed cleaning because air flow in the disclosed device cleans inflowing air by forcing air away from the elements claimed). Claim 1 discloses the claimed invention, as rejected, except for the recite feature of lateral holes at least at two different heights. Herbert, another device for drying feet and/or footwear, discloses that feature at column 3 lines 34-61 and shown in figures 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Herbert for the purpose of allowing differing air flow heights to drying feet and/or footwear more fully by providing outflow air and various portions of drying area. Furthermore, Lin in view of Herbert discloses the claimed invention, except for the recited shortest distance. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite that feature, since the teachings of Lin in view of Herbert would perform that feature regardless of that recited distance.
Claims 2, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Herbert in further \ view of Hurter (US 11,969,068). Lin discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited sensor and ultraviolet radiation. Hurter, another drying device, discloses a sensor at column 5 line 22 through column 6 line 17 and ultraviolet radiation at column 8 lines 9-45. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Lin in view of Hurter for the purpose of detecting a position of an item to be dried or radiative drying in order to optimize drying based on location and type of drying. Furthermore, Lin in view of Hurter discloses the claimed invention, except for the shortest distance, slot shape, or inclination angle. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recited those features, since the teachings of Lin in view of Hurter would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those claim recitations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Herbert in further view of Ga (KR 2015/ 012074). Lin discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited infrared radiation. Ga, another drying device, discloses that feature in the translated disclosure. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Lin in view of Ga for the purpose of radiative drying in order to optimize drying based on type of drying.
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 and reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, N, O, P, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, R, cited with this action teach drying 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.
Saturday, March 21, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753