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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cochrane (US 5,016,364). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Cochrane as teaching:
a shoe care device (see title and abstract) comprising:
an inner cabinet 12 having an accommodation space configured to accommodate shoes (figure 1);
a shelf holder 24c, 24d, 24f located on a side wall 24 of the inner cabinet (column 3 lines 18-61 wherein the disclosed walls meet the structure and function of the claimed shelf holder because both hold shelves in which shoes can be placed);
an opening 36 in a bottom surface of the inner cabinet to suck air from inside the accommodation space (figure 3 column 4 lines 16-30);
a connection path 50a, 50b defining a flow path through which the air in the accommodation space is introduced into the connection path through the opening and then discharged from the connection path and into the accommodation space (figures 3 column 4 lines 31-40);
a blower 40 located in the connection path, the blower being configured to move the air along the connection path;
a dehumidifier 14 located in the connection path, the dehumidifier being configured to dehumidify the air in the connection path (column 4 lines 41-52 wherein the drying space circulation functions as a dehumidifier because dehumidification results from drying space circulation); and
an auxiliary shelf 22 configured to be mounted on the shelf holder, the auxiliary shelf having an upper surface configured to receive the shoes thereon. Cochrane also discloses the claim 23 feature wherein the auxiliary shelf is removably mounted to the shelf holder (column 3 lines 47-61 wherein the disclosed “additional bars” teaches the claimed removable feature because both can be removed), the claim 24 feature wherein the auxiliary shelf includes at least one auxiliary isolation rib protruding upward from the upper surface of the auxiliary shelf (figures 1, 3), the claim 25 feature wherein the at least one auxiliary isolation rib extends diagonally between a front surface of the inner cabinet and a rear surface of the inner cabinet (figures 1, 2), the claim 26 wherein the auxiliary shelf further includes an auxiliary outer rib that continuously protrudes upward along a perimeter of the auxiliary shelf (figures 1, 3).
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 27-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Anderson et al. (US 6,742,276). Cochrane discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed shaped, magnetic force, accommodation groove, or width/thickness parameter (claims 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recited those features, since the teachings of Cochrane will perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability. Furthermore, Cochrane discloses the claimed invention, except for the claimed nozzle feature (claims 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38). Anderson, another shoe care device, discloses that feature at column 4 line 27 through column 5 line 4. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Cochrane with the teachings of Anderson for the purpose of discharging dehumidifying air into a shoe care device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,881. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application claims 1 and 3 anticipate claim 1 of the current application, except for the current application claimed shelves. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include shelves in the current application, since both claimed invention would perform as claimed regardless of shelves and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those differences as being necessary for patentability.
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 application 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 or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, C, D, N, O, cited with this application, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References E, F, G, H, I, J, K, cited with this application, teach shoe care 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.
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights