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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braden (US 5,729,908) in view of Poulos (US 5,179,790) in view of Hee (KR20170097315).
As for claim 1, Braden discloses a sanitizing and deodorizing device, the device comprising: a wireless power source detachably connected to the device for powering the device (64, 3:57); a control configured to facilitate a user to switch between a shoe sanitizing mode and a bag deodorizing mode (30, 31, fig. 1, 3:18, turning heat on or off depending if in sanitizing or deodorizing mode whether in a shoe or a bag); the shoe sanitizing mode, and odor from a bag in the bag deodorizing mode (30, 31, fig. 1, 3:18, turning heat on or off depending if in sanitizing or deodorizing mode); a heating coil, selectively activated in the shoe sanitizing mode, configured to heat dry air to a user-defined temperature (30, 31, fig. 1, 3:18, turning heat on or off controls drying air temperature to be heated or ambient); and an exhaust fan positioned in between the activated charcoal (activated charcoal of Hee, see below, upstream of fan) and the heating coil (28, 30, fig. 1) configured to maintain a continuous airflow throughout one of the shoe sanitization and bag deodorization (flow maintained regardless of object to be dried).
Braden discloses the claimed invention except for a control knob configured to heat dry air to a user-defined temperature. Poulos teaches a control knob (60, fig. 7a, 3:53); configured to heat dry air to a user-defined temperature (60, fig. 7a, 3:53) in order to provide a user with the ability to accelerate or slow the drying process. Braden would benefit equally from providing a user with the ability to accelerate or slow the drying process. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Braden with a control knob configured to heat dry air to a user-defined temperature as taught by Poulos in order to provide a user with the ability to accelerate or slow the drying process.
Braden discloses the claimed invention except for an activated charcoal configured to absorb odor and moisture from a shoe. Hee teaches an activated charcoal configured to absorb odor and moisture from a shoe (claim 3, the last claim) in order to deodorize the object to be dried. Braden would benefit equally from deodorizing the object to be dried. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Braden with an activated charcoal configured to absorb odor and moisture from a shoe as taught by Hee in order to deodorize the object to be dried.
As for claim 4, Braden discloses in the shoe sanitizing mode (31, fig. 1, 3:18, turning heat on in sanitizing mode), dry air from the activated charcoal passes through the heating coil reaches the user-defined temperature to remove moisture, kill bacteria, and sanitize the shoe (30, fig. 1, in combination with the activated charcoal of Hee as described above).
As for claim 5, Braden discloses in the bag deodorizing mode, the exhaust fan circulates fresh air in the bag via the activated charcoal to deodorize the bag (31, fig. 1, 3:18, turning heat off in deodorizing mode) when connected to the wireless power source (3:57).
As for claim 6, Braden discloses the heating coil is deactivated in bag deodorizing mode (31, fig. 1, 3:18, turning heat off in deodorizing mode).
As for claim 10 Braden discloses the air outlet vent is removable for easy cleaning and maintenance (39, 51, fig. 10, 3:40-44).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braden in view of Poulos in view of Hee as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schulte (US 5,570,515).
Braden discloses an air inlet vent configured to intake fresh air from atmosphere during shoe sanitizing mode and the claimed invention except for an air outlet vent designed with a slant to allow maximum airflow to a toe end of the shoe. Schulte teaches an air outlet vent designed with a slant to allow maximum airflow to a toe end of the shoe (7, fig. 1, 3:30-31) in order to direct the drying air towards the toe end. Braden would benefit equally from directing the drying air towards the toe end. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Braden with an air outlet vent designed with a slant to allow maximum airflow to a toe end of the shoe as taught by Schulte in order to direct the drying air towards the toe end.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braden in view of Poulos in view of Hee as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dearing (US 2013/0180122).
Braden discloses the claimed invention except for the wireless power source detachably connected to the device, facilitates easy replacement, and recharging of the power source; and comprising a magnetic pairing mechanism, wherein the magnetic pairing mechanism facilitates at least two sanitizing and deodorizing devices to be wirelessly paired together for simultaneous sanitizing of a pair of shoes. Dearing teaches the wireless power source detachably connected to the device, facilitates easy replacement, and recharging of the power source (16, fig. 7, [0020]); and comprising a magnetic pairing mechanism, wherein the magnetic pairing mechanism facilitates at least two sanitizing and deodorizing devices to be wirelessly paired together for simultaneous sanitizing of a pair of shoes (24, fig. 2, [0023]) in order to enable easy charging and pairing a plurality of devices together to increase the strength of the drying air. Braden would benefit equally from easy charging and increasing the strength of the drying air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Braden with the wireless power source detachably connected to the device, facilitates easy replacement, and recharging of the power source; and comprising a magnetic pairing mechanism, wherein the magnetic pairing mechanism facilitates at least two sanitizing and deodorizing devices to be wirelessly paired together for simultaneous sanitizing of a pair of shoes as taught by Dearing in order to enable easy charging and increase the strength of the drying air.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braden in view of Poulos in view of Hee as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Callahan (US 2022/0152240).
Braden discloses an activation of the shoe sanitizing mode and activation of the bag deodorizing mode and the claimed invention except for an indicator light to indicate operational modes of the device, wherein a first colour indicates an activation of [one] mode, and a second colour indicates an activation of the [second] mode. Callahan teaches an indicator light to indicate operational modes of the device, wherein a first colour indicates an activation of [one] mode, and a second colour indicates an activation of the [second] mode (340, [0066]) in order to assist the user to know which mode has been selected. Braden would benefit equally from assisting the user to know which mode has been selected. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Braden with an indicator light to indicate operational modes of the device, wherein a first colour indicates an activation of [one] mode, and a second colour indicates an activation of the [second] mode as taught by Callahan in order to assist the user to know which mode has been selected.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braden in view of Poulos in view of Hee as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Concannon (US 2021/0299304).
The combination of Braden and Hee discloses or teaches the claimed invention except for the activated charcoal is replaceable to ensure optimal performance. Concannon teaches the activated charcoal is replaceable to ensure optimal performance [0021] in order to facilitate easier replacement of the activated charcoal. The combination of Braden and Hee would benefit equally from facilitating easier replacement of the activated charcoal. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by the combination of Braden and Hee with the activated charcoal is replaceable to ensure optimal performance as taught by Concannon in order to facilitate easier replacement of the activated charcoal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 3 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the control knob is further configured to enable the user to select a set of predefined timers for sanitization and deodorization with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. The closest prior art is found in art like Song (CN218009668) that includes a control knob for enabling a user to set a timer (6, fig. 1), but not a rotary knob to select a predefined timer for sanitization and deodorization modes of operation as defined by independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights