DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are accompanying arguments, filed February 03, 2026, with respect to the outstanding 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections of have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in light of the partial incorporation of limitations, new grounds of rejection are made and presented below.
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.
Claims 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 53, the recitations including the limitations of the “lower body”, “middle body” and “upper body” are unclear and confusing since it is not known whether these are new limitations or an unintended redundancy of limitations already present within amended Claim 36. As such, the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicants is unascertainable. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 36 & 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 8-35769 in view of Paul et al., [US 5,245,841]. JP`769 teaches of a shoe care device (1) comprising: an accommodation space (8) to accommodate shoes {A} therein; a first body ((2) + (3)); a second body (5), the second body being slidably coupled to the first body to move between a first position (fig. 1) and a second position (fig. 3), the first body and the second body defining the accommodation space when the second body is in the first position (shown); and a blower ((18) + (20)) configured to circulate air in the accommodation space; wherein the first body including an upper body (top horizontal body of (2)) defining a top of the accommodation space, a lower body (3) positioned below the accommodation space; and a middle body (rear vertical body of (2) as shown in fig. 4) defining a rear surface of the accommodation space, the middle body connecting rear sides of the upper body and the lower body (shown), and wherein the second body includes a base (bottom section of (5)) slidably coupled to the lower body, and a portion (upward wall portion including (9) as shown in fig. 3) extending upward from an upper portion of the base and defining a front surface of the accommodation space, a first side surface (slightly raised foreground side surface as shown in fig. 3) of the accommodation space, and a second side surface (slightly raised background side surface as shown in fig. 3) of the accommodation space opposite the first side surface of the accommodation space; but JP`769 does not show a frame body coupled to the first body to support the first body as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Paul is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a frame body (generally identified as (38) in fig. 6 for explanation purposes) being coupled with a first body (generally identified as (24, 26) in fig. 6 for explanation purposes) in order to support the first body. The frame body including an upper frame (38a, 38b) coupled to the upper body, a lower frame (32’s) coupled to the lower body, and a middle frame (34’s, 44) that connects the rear sides of the upper and lower frames and is coupled to the middle body. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of JP`769 so as to incorporate a frame body within the first body in view of Paul’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a more robust structure due to the added frame body imparting strength and rigidity to the first body thereby strengthening the integrity of the shoe care device as a whole. Regarding Claim 51, as modified, the frame body would be located inside the first body. Regarding Claim 52, as modified, the frame body is provided as a plurality of frame bodies (when considering all the bodies / components associated with the mapped frame body) spaced apart in the first body. Regarding Claim 53, as modified, the first body includes: the lower body (3); the middle body (rear vertical body of (2) as shown in fig. 4) extending upward at a rear side of the lower body; the upper body (top horizontal body of (2)) extending forward at an upper side of the middle body; and a front frame (can be viewed as either of the side vertical bodies of (2)) connecting the lower body and the upper body at a front of the first body {depending upon viewed orientation of the first body}.
Claims 37 & 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP`769 and Paul and further in view of Pierre [US 9,836,910]. The prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed shoe care device as outlined {mapped} above, including a base (bottom section of (5)) slidably coupled to the lower body; but JP`769 does not show the front surface and side surfaces of the base as being transparent. As to this aspect, Pierre is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a transparent material for the manufacture of a second body (drawer – 130) that is slidably coupled to a first body (120). The second body including a base (bottom of the drawer) and a transparent window (front wall window of drawer – fig. 2) extending upward from an upper portion of the base and defining a front surface of a shoe {170} accommodation space, a first transparent side surface (side wall window of drawer - fig. 2) of the accommodation space, and a second side surface (opposite side wall window of drawer - fig. 2) of the accommodation space opposite the first side surface of the accommodation space. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP`769 so as to employ a transparent material for the slidable second body in view of Pierre’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which articles {shoes} stored within the slidable second body can be viewed by an observer while the second body is in the first position and without having to slidably extract to the second position as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 54, as modified, the second body would include a transparent window (front wall of the drawer) having a first window defining a front surface of the accommodation space; a second window (left side wall of the drawer) defining a left surface of the accommodation space; and a third window (right side wall of the drawer) defining a right surface of the accommodation space; and wherein the front frame includes a first front frame (right vertical wall of (2) – fig. 3) positioned at a shortest distance from a corner portion where the first window and the second window meet at the first position; and a second front frame (left vertical wall of (2) – fig. 3) positioned at a shortest distance from a corner portion where the first window and the third window meet at the first position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-50 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.
Claim 55 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing a warmer drawer assembly.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, 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.
JOH
February 27, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637