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 1-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhaemers (US 5,546,678). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, to be disclosed by Dhaemers as teaching:
a shoe holding device configured to hold a shoe in a shoe care device having a steam inlet configured to supply steam into an inner cabinet and a nozzle configured to supply air into the inner cabinet (see title and abstract and column 1 line 39 for steam teaching), the shoe holding device comprising:
a holding base detachably coupled to the inner cabinet and configured to shield the steam inlet, the holding base comprising a first channel provided therein to communicate with the steam inlet (column 1 lines 23-46 for steam teaching and column 4 lines 40-49 wherein the disclosed shelf is the same as the claimed holding base because both are detachably couple to an inner cabinet with shielding features); and
a holding pipe extending upward from the holding base and configured to enter the shoe, the holding pipe comprising a second channel provided therein to communicate with the first channel and a first pipe outlet provided at an end thereof to communicate with the second channel (column 6 lines 24-58 and shown in figures 4, 6). Dhaemers also discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the holding pipe is provided to be inclined upward from the holding base along a first direction which is a horizontal direction, and wherein the holding base is provided along a second direction, which is a horizontal direction orthogonal to the first direction (figures 9, 10), the claim 3 feature wherein a pair of holding pipes are provided to be spaced apart from each other in the second direction (figures 11, 12), the claim 4 feature wherein the holding pipe comprises a second pipe outlet as a hole provided at a point closer to the first pipe outlet than the holding base and communicating with the second channel (figures 9, 10), the claim 5 feature wherein the holding base comprises a base communication hole, which is a hole penetrating the holding base, to allow the first channel to communicate with an inside of the inner cabinet (figures 11, 12), the claim 6 feature wherein the holding pipe comprises a third pipe outlet, which is a hole provided at a point closer to the holding base than the first pipe outlet, to allow the second channel to communicate with an inside of the inner cabinet (figures 4, 6), the claim 7 feature wherein the holding pipe comprises a second pipe outlet as a hole provided at a point closer to the first pipe outlet than the holding base and communicating with the second channel, and wherein the second pipe outlet is provided in an upper surface of the holding pipe (figures 9, 10), the claim 8 feature wherein the holding base is coupled to the inner cabinet to be rotatable about a holding rotation shaft, and wherein the holding rotation shaft is parallel to the second direction (figures 11, 12), the claim 9 feature wherein a pair of holding rotation shafts are provided, and wherein the pair of holding rotation shafts protrude from the holding base in a same direction (figures 11, 12), the claim 10 feature wherein the holding rotation shaft is provided at a rear side of the holding base with reference to the first direction, and wherein, when the shoe holding device rotates to one side about the holding rotation shaft, the holding pipe approaches a side wall of the inner cabinet and the holding base exposes the steam inlet (column 6 lines 24-58), the claims 12 and 14 feature of a holding shelf that is flat along the horizontal direction to be placed on a bottom of the inner cabinet and is fixed to the holding base; a nozzle connection part protruding upward from an upper surface of the holding shelf to be connected to the nozzle, the nozzle connection part comprising therein a third channel into which air discharged from the nozzle is introduced; and a channel connection part provided on the upper surface of the holding shelf, the channel connection part comprising a fourth channel provided therein to communicate with the second channel and the third channel, and (figures 9, 10), and the claim 15 feature wherein the fourth channel is connected to the second channel via the first channel (figures 9, 10).
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaemers. Dhaemers discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the flat feature and reinforcement rib feature. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recited those features since the teachings of Dhaemers would perform the invention regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 27, and 35 of copending Application No. 18/720,980 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite the currently claimed holding feature since the copending claimed shelf anticipates the current claimed invention and both the holding feature and copending claimed shelf are patentably the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting. References A, B, N, O, P, Q, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, cited with this action teach shoe holding 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.
Friday, October 9, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights