DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 06/05/2024 & 07/16/2026. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim only repeats what has already been claimed (e.g. a ball support). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1–3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0256826 to Zarembinski.
With regard to claims 1 & 6, Zarembinski discloses a device for drying sporting equipment (abstract) comprising: a housing (20) defining an enclosure and including a plurality of walls and a door (22) (Figs. 1 & 8; ¶ 0019); at least one ball support (58) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0020); a blower mechanism (100) including: an air inlet (30) that draws air from outside the enclosure (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0019–0020); a fan (62) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0019–0020); a motor operably connected to the fan (62) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0019–0020); a power source for the motor (¶¶ 0005, 0018–0019); a heating element (94) downstream of the fan (62) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0020); an exhaust port (86) directing an airstream generated by the fan (62) toward the ball support (58) inside the enclosure (Fig. 2; ¶ 0022); exit holes (50) defined by the housing that allow water and moist air to escape the enclosure (Fig. 2; ¶ 0024; louvers create a plurality of holes).
With regard to claim 2, Zarembinski further discloses the blower mechanism (100) is mounted to an inside surface of the enclosure (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 3, Zarembinski further discloses the plurality of walls includes a rear wall, a top wall, a bottom wall, and two side walls (Fig. 2; ¶ 0019).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarembinski.
Zarembinski fails to disclose the blower mechanism is mounted to a rear wall of the enclosure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the blower mechanism to the rear wall of the enclosure instead of the side wall of the enclosure, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarembinski in view of Official Notice.
Zarembinski fails to disclose. Squirrel cage fans are old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the sports equipment dryer of Zarembinski with a squirrel cage fan known in the art because such a combination would have been the simple substitution of one know type of fan for another, yielding only predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights