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
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) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H08-35769 A (Nakano) in view of CN 106724098 A (Li) and KR 10-2230674 B1 (Yoon).
With respect to claim 13: Nakano discloses a shoe care device (drying cabinet 1) comprising: an accommodation space (box 8) to accommodate shoes (shoes A) therein (Figs. 1-3); a first body (outer case 2, bottom plate 3, and middle frame 4); a second body (shoe storage box 5), the second body slidably coupled to the first body to move between a first position (box 5 closed as in Figs. 1-2) and a second position (box 5 open as in Fig. 3), the first body and the second body defining the accommodation space when the second body is in the first position (Figs. 1-2); a blower (fan unit 18) configured to circulate air in the accommodation space (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, and pages 4-7 of the translation), wherein the first body comprises: an upper body (middle frame 4) defining an upper surface of the accommodation space; a lower body (bottom plate 3) located below the accommodation space; and a middle body (outer body 2) connecting rear sides of the upper body and the lower body, the middle body defining a rear surface of the accommodation space (Figs. 1-4), and wherein the second body comprises: a base (box 5 and/or the bottom panel thereof) slidably coupled to the lower body.
Nakano does not disclose “and a stopper configured to limit sliding movement of the second body relative to the first body at the second position” as claimed.
Li Fig. 2, the translated Abstract, and pages 4-5 of the translation show it is known in the shoe care cabinet device art to have “a stopper” as claimed (limiting block 5) that limits the opening movement of a clapboard 2 out of a cabinet body 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakano’s drying cabinet 1 to include one or more of Li’s limiting blocks 5, in order to stop the shoe storage box 5 at the open position thereof and/or to prevent unwanted separation of the shoe storage box 5 and the outer case 2 when the box 5 is being opened.
Nakano does not disclose “and a transparent window extending upward from an upper part of the base, the transparent window defining a front surface of the accommodation space, a first side surface of the accommodation space, and a second side surface of the accommodation space opposite the first side surface of the accommodation space” as claimed.
Yoon Fig. 1 (on page 10) shows a transparent door D on a shoe care device cabinet. The transparent door D has a front, a left side, and a right side.
See Nakano Figs. 1-4 for the not-numbered front panel of the box 5, which has a handle 9 therein. This front panel has a front, a left side, and a right side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the not-numbered front panel of Nakano’s box 5 to be transparent, like Yoon’s door D, so that a user can see into the drying cabinet 1 while the shoe storage box 5 is closed.
This meets, as claimed, a transparent window (the not-numbered front panel of box 5, modified to be transparent like Yoon’s door D) extending upward from an upper part of the base, the transparent window defining a front surface of the accommodation space (at the front side of the modified front panel), a first side surface of the accommodation space (at one of the left or right side member of the modified front panel), and a second side surface of the accommodation space (at the other of the left or right side member of the modified front panel) opposite the first side surface of the accommodation space.
With respect to claim 14: Nakano discloses a heater (first heater 17 and/or second heater 25) configured to heat the air circulating in the accommodation space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 16-28 is/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.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections and claim objections made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the Applicant’s amendments dated 12 January 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion at page 4 of the remarks that Nakano’s modified front panel of the box 5 (which has the handle 9 therein) is not capable of defining the claimed “side surfaces” of the accommodation space.
In claim 13, the limitation in question is:
the transparent window defining a front surface of the accommodation space, a first side surface of the accommodation space, and a second side surface of the accommodation space opposite the first side surface of the accommodation space
See Nakano Figs. 1-4 and the annotated image below. What the Applicant refers to as “merely minimal returns” at the lateral sides of the front panel are interpreted as meeting the claimed “first and second side surfaces”. These are identified by the arrows in the annotated image below.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed “defining…a first side surface…and a second side surface”, the identified side return portions of the front panel do form “a first side surface” and “a second side surface” of the accommodation space. As claimed, the “first side surface” and “second side surface” are not required to be the entire left side surface and the entire right side surface of the accommodation space.
As modified, the identified side return portions are transparent and form one surface at a first side of the accommodation space, and a second surface at a second side of the accommodation space (when closed, as on the left portion of the annotated image above). This meets the claim limitation as written, under the BRI thereof.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637