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.
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 11, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima et al. (JP 2005230324 A).
Regarding claim 11, 26, Yajima et al. discloses a shoe care device 1 comprising: an inner cabinet having an accommodation space configured to accommodate shoes 3 (Fig. 1, not numbered, where shoe 3 located); a module chamber 12 comprising a first flow path in communication with the accommodation space and a second flow path spaced apart from the first flow path (see air flow arrows into and out of chamber 12 in Fig. 1); a blower 10 configured to blow air from the first flow path toward the second flow path (Fig. 2 ); a dehumidifier 9 disposed between the first flow path and the second flow path (Fig. 2), the dehumidifier 9 including: a dehumidifying body comprising a pulp material impregnated with a dehumidifying material, the dehumidifying body having an upper surface facing the first flow path and a lower surface facing the second flow path; and a plurality of dehumidifying through-holes 8 extending through the dehumidifying body, the dehumidifying through-holes being configured to allow air introduced into the upper surface to move toward the lower surface (Figs. 2, 4, 5, paragraph [0013]). Wherein a cross-sectional area of each dehumidifying through-hole of the plurality of dehumidifying through-holes is a hexagonal shape (paragraph [0013], honeycomb structure).
Regarding claim 27, Yajima et al. discloses shoe care device 1 comprising: an inner cabinet having an accommodation space configured to accommodate shoes 3 (Fig. 1, not numbered, where shoe 3 located); a module chamber 12 comprising a first flow path in communication with the accommodation space and a second flow path spaced apart from the first flow path (see air flow arrows into and out of chamber 12 in Fig. 1); a blower l0 located in the module chamber 12, the blower 10 being configured to blow air from the first flow path toward the second flow path (Fig, 2); a heater 11 located in the module chamber 12, the heater 11 being configured to heat the air in the first flow path; and a dehumidifier 9 located between the first flow path and the second flow path in the module chamber 12 (Fig. 2), the dehumidifier 9 including: a dehumidifying body having an upper surface facing the first flow path and a lower surface facing the second flow path; and a plurality of dehumidifying through-holes 8 extending through the dehumidifying body, the dehumidifying through-holes being configured to allow air introduced into the upper surface to move toward the lower surface (Figs. 2, 4, 5, paragraph [0013]).
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.
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima et al. (JP 2005230324 A).
Regarding claim 25, Yajima et al. discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Yajima et al. does not expressly disclose the dehumidifier has a maximum moisture content of 30 to 40% when used in the module chamber and a maximum moisture content of 60-75% when immersed in water. It appears that the device of Yajima et al. would operate equally well with the claimed maximum moisture content since the dehumidifier is intended to absorb moisture. Further applicant has not disclosed that the range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, indicating simply that the maximum moisture content “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification, paragraphs [0033], [0465]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the dehumidifier of Yajima et al. to have a maximum moisture content of 30 to 40% when used in the module chamber and a maximum moisture content of 60-75% when immersed in water because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Yajima et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-24, 28-30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claims 12-24, 28 is the inclusion of the limitations “an average interval between adjacent dehumidifying through-holes of the plurality of dehumidifying through-holes is 0.5 to 1.5 times a maximum length of a cross-sectional area of one dehumidifying through-hole of the plurality of dehumidifying through-holes” in claims 12 and 28, “the plurality of dehumidifying through-holes are inclined downward from the upper surface of the dehumidifying body toward the lower surface of the dehumidifying body” in claims 13 and 29, “the dehumidifying body being inclined downward to extend from the upper surface of the module chamber to the lower surface of the module chamber” in claim 30, in combination with the remaining claimed elements. These features are neither know from, or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights