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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 09 August 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1 and 13 has/have been amended and claim(s) 6, 8, 11-12, 16-17, and 20 is/are canceled. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 18-19, and 21 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 08 June 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the Drawings
Objections to the Specifications
Objections to the Claims
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 13 (and claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, 14-15, 18-19, and 21 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13, recites the limitation, “substantially flat head.” It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the head can deviate from being flat to be considered “substantially flat”.
Claims 1 and 13, recites the limitation, “substantially domed head.” It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the head can deviate from being domed to be considered “substantially domed”.
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 1-2, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US 3101559 in view of Diaz US 5694703, in view of Trimby US 0498965, and further in view of Pratt US 1112553.
Regarding independent Claim 1, Smith discloses a cut-resistant safety shoe (Figs. 1-3; It should be noted that every material offers some level of physical resistance to being cut therefore all materials are fundamentally “cut-resistant”. Further, Oxford Languages defines “safety” as “the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury,” therefore most all shoes are designed to provide some level of safety to the wearer as they protect the feet when walking), the shoe comprising: a sole (Fig. 3 #3), an upper material (Fig. 3 #17); a rand (Fig. 3 #15) having an edge (Fig. 3 shows the edge of the rand as a folded edge) that is directed towards the upper material (Fig. 3 shows the edge of the rand is directed towards the upper material); a cut protection layer (Fig. 3 #21; See above for “cut-resistant”) provided on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 3 #17a); the cut protection layer comprising a lining (Fig. 3 #21 is a lining); and a plurality of rivets (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of rivets #18) penetrating the rand (Fig. 3) and the upper material (Fig. 3) but not the cut protection layer (Fig. 3 shows the cut protection #21 layer is not penetrated by the rivet #18); each rivet of the plurality of rivets comprising a head (Smith Annotated Fig. 3) disposed on an inside of the shoe (Fig. 3) and a substantially domed head disposed on an outside of the shoe (Fig. 3 #18 head is domed and on the outside of the shoe), wherein each rivet of the plurality of rivets comprises a shaft (Smith Annotated Fig. 3), a first side of the head directly connected to the shaft (Fig. 3), the first side of the head comprising a first planar surface (Smith Annotated Fig. 3; further, Fig. 3 shows that at least part of the rivet is planar), and a second side of the head (Smith Annotated Fig. 3) being opposite the first side (Fig. 3) away from the shaft (Fig. 3), the second side comprising a second planar surface (Fig. 3 shows the inner side of the rivet— the side against the shoe on both the outer and inner surfaces— is substantially planar) forming a distal end surface of each rivet of the plurality of rivets (Smith Annotated Fig. 3); wherein the head is disposed on an inner side of the cut resistant safety shoe (Fig. 3); wherein the head is sandwiched between the upper material and the cut protections layer (Fig. 3), the second surface being directly covered by the cut protection layer (Fig. 3), the second planar surface being directly covered by the cut protection layer (Smith Annotated Fig. 3) and the first planar surface is proximate to the upper material (Fig. 3); and wherein the plurality of rivets are inserted along the edge of the rand (Figs. 1 & 3).
Smith does not expressly disclose an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the sole, the lining having a fibrous texture and configured such that a chain by shredding, and that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat.
Trimby teaches shoes with rands comprising an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the sole (Pg. 1:32-49).
Both Smith and Trimby teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use adhesive to bond the rand to the sole of the shoe of Smith as taught by Trimby to add an extra layer of bonding to the shoe so that in the event that the rivets failed, the rand would stay attached to the shoe and not fall off, thereby still protecting the wearer.
The modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith does not expressly disclose the lining having a fibrous texture and configured such that a chain by shredding and that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat.
Diaz teaches a chain saw safety shoe (Figs. 1-6 #10) with a cut protection layer (Figs. 1-6 #42) comprising a lining having a fibrous texture (Col. 4:1-14) and configured such that a chain by shredding (Col. 4:1-14).
Both Smith and Diaz teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lining having a fibrous texture as the cut protection layer of the invention of Smith as taught by Diaz because “This support tends to hold the woven layers in a more structured manner when engaged by the chain saw blade and permits filaments of the woven layer to be more readily disengaged from the woven layers. The filaments cause the chain saw blade to jam,” (Diaz Col. 4:1-14). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
The modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith does not expressly disclose that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat.
Pratt teaches a shoe with a plurality of rivets (Fig. 7) wherein the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat (Fig. 7, #24 inner side of the shoe).
Smith (as modified by Trimby and Diaz) and Pratt teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby and Diaz) as taught by Pratt to have a flat head on the inner rivet so that the manufacturer could use inexpensive single-cap or double-cap rivets when producing the shoe to decrease the cost of construction, and since most single/double-capped rivets are made of lightweight steel, the use of these rivets would decrease the weight of the shoe. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing date to use a rivet with a flat head on one side as there are only a finite number of rivet types available for use in footwear manufacturing thus choosing a flat-headed rivet would have a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the Prior Art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require the ability of the structure to perform and/or function. As the Prior Art of Smith discloses the structure of the cut-resistant safety shoe, there would be a reasonable expectation for the cut-resistant safety shoe to perform such functions as explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the edge comprises an undulated portion, and wherein the rivets are arranged in a wave crest of the undulated portion.
Pratt teaches a shoe with a plurality of rivets wherein the edge comprises an undulated portion (Figs. 1-7 #4/5/6), and wherein the rivets are arranged in a wave crest of the undulated portion (Figs. 1-7 show the rivet holes in the wave crests).
Smith (as modified by Trimby) and Pratt teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby) as taught by Pratt to have an undulating edge with rivets in the crests of undulation waves so that, “permits the use of stock pieces 25 and 26 [rand] for a wide variety of sizes and shapes of counters” (Pratt Page 3, l. 62-64).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, further comprising a second adhesive bond (Fig. 3 shows a rivet, which acts as a second adhesive bond) for bonding the rand to the upper material (Fig. 3).
Regarding independent Claim 13, Smith discloses a cut-resistant safety shoe (Figs. 1-3; It should be noted that every material offers some level of physical resistance to being cut therefore all materials are fundamentally “cut-resistant”. Further, Oxford Languages defines “safety” as “the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury,” therefore most all shoes are designed to provide some level of safety to the wearer as they protect the feet when walking), the shoe comprising: a sole (Fig. 3 #3), an upper material (Fig. 3 # 17); a rand (Fig. 3 #15) having an edge (Fig. 3 shows the edge of the rand as a folded edge) that lies above the upper material (Fig. 3 shows the edge of the rand is above the upper material); a cut protection layer (Fig. 3 #21; See above for “cut-resistant”) provided on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 3 #17a); the cut protection layer comprising a lining (Fig. 3 #21 is a lining); a plurality of rivets (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of rivets #18) penetrating the rand (Fig. 3) and the upper material (Fig. 3) but not the cut protection layer (Fig. 3 shows the cut protection #21 layer is not penetrated by the rivet #18); each rivet of the plurality of rivets comprising a head (Smith Annotated Fig. 3) disposed on an inside of the shoe (Fig. 3) and a substantially domed head disposed on an outside of the shoe (Fig. 3 #18 head is domed and on the outside of the shoe), wherein each rivet of the plurality of rivets comprises a shaft (Smith Annotated Fig. 3), a first side of the head directly connected to the shaft (Fig. 3), the first side of the head comprising a first planar surface (Fig. 3; further, Fig. 3 shows that at least part of the rivet is planar), and a second side of the head (Smith Annotated Fig. 3) being opposite the first side (Fig. 3) away from the shaft (Fig. 3), the second side comprising a second planar surface (Fig. 3 shows the inner side of the rivet— the side against the shoe on both the outer and inner surfaces— is substantially planar) forming a distal end surface of each rivet of the plurality of rivets (Smith Annotated Fig. 3); wherein the head is disposed on an inner side of the cut resistant safety shoe (Fig. 3); wherein the head is sandwiched between the upper material and the cut protections layer (Fig. 3), the second surface being directly covered by the cut protection layer (Fig. 3) and the first planar surface is proximate to the upper material (Fig. 3); and wherein the plurality of rivets are inserted along the edge of the rand (Figs. 1 & 3).
Smith does not expressly disclose an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the sole, the lining having a fibrous texture and configured such that a chain by shredding, and that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat.
Trimby teaches shoes with rands comprising an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the sole (Pg. 1:32-49).
Both Smith and Trimby teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use adhesive to bond the rand to the sole of the shoe of Smith as taught by Trimby to add an extra layer of bonding to the shoe so that in the event that the rivets failed, the rand would stay attached to the shoe and not fall off, thereby still protecting the wearer.
The modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith does not expressly disclose the lining having a fibrous texture and configured such that a chain by shredding and that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat.
Diaz teaches a chain saw safety shoe (Figs. 1-6 #10) with a cut protection layer (Figs. 1-6 #42) comprising a lining having a fibrous texture (Col. 4:1-14) and configured such that a chain by shredding (Col. 4:1-14).
Both Smith and Diaz teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lining having a fibrous texture as the cut protection layer of the invention of Smith as taught by Diaz because “This support tends to hold the woven layers in a more structured manner when engaged by the chain saw blade and permits filaments of the woven layer to be more readily disengaged from the woven layers. The filaments cause the chain saw blade to jam,” (Diaz Col. 4:1-14). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
The modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith does not expressly disclose that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat.
Pratt teaches a shoe with a plurality of rivets (Fig. 7) wherein the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat (Fig. 7, #24 inner side of the shoe).
Smith (as modified by Trimby and Diaz) and Pratt teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby and Diaz) as taught by Pratt to have a flat head on the inner rivet so that the manufacturer could use inexpensive single-cap or double-cap rivets when producing the shoe to decrease the cost of construction, and since most single/double-capped rivets are made of lightweight steel, the use of these rivets would decrease the weight of the shoe. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing date to use a rivet with a flat head on one side as there are only a finite number of rivet types available for use in footwear manufacturing thus choosing a flat-headed rivet would have a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Diaz, Trimby, and Pratt as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Marega US 6444074.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, comprising the edge (Fig. 3), but does not expressly disclose the edge comprises a serrated portion, and wherein the rivets are arranged in a spike of the serrated portion.
Marega teaches shoes with rivets comprising a serrated portion (Figs. 1-2 #22 shows a serrated edge), and wherein the rivets are arranged in a spike of the serrated portion (Figs. 1-2 #20 show the rivets in the middle of the spikes of the serrated edge).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt), and Marega teach shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a serrated edge to the rand of the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Marega to alter the design aesthetic of the shoe itself. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/pattern on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding Claim 14, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claims 1-2, comprising the edge (Fig. 3), but does not expressly disclose the edge comprises a serrated portion, and wherein the rivets are arranged in a spike of the serrated portion.
Marega teaches shoes with rivets comprising a serrated portion (Figs. 1-2 #22 shows a serrated edge), and wherein the rivets are arranged in a spike of the serrated portion (Figs. 1-2 #20 show the rivets in the middle of the spikes of the serrated edge).
Both Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Marega teach shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a serrated edge to the rand of the shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Marega to alter the design aesthetic of the shoe itself. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/pattern on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, 15, 18-19, and 21 as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Diaz, Trimby, and Pratt as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Tin WO 2009005336.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, and further comprising a connection (Col. 2, l. 44-47) between the rand the upper material (Col. 2, l. 44-47; Fig. 3), but does not expressly disclose the connection being sewn.
Tin teaches a safety shoe (Fig. 17) with a rand (Tin Annotated Fig. 18) that is sewn to (Page 1, l. 11-12) an upper material (Page 1, l. 11-12; Tin Annotated Fig. 18).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby and Pratt) as taught by Tin to have a sewn connection between the rand and the upper material as stitching does not require drying time so the shoe can be packaged quickly.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a lining layer disposed on an inside of the upper material.
Tin teaches a safety shoe comprising a lining layer (Tin Annotated Fig. 18) disposed on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 18 shows the lining layer on the inside aspect of the upper material).
Both Smith (as modified by Trimby and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin to have a lining layer on the inside of the upper material to add an additional layer of protection against chemicals or damage to the cut-protection layer if penetration occurs to the upper material.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 7, wherein each rivet of the plurality of rivets penetrate, at least in part, the rand and the upper material (Fig. 3), but does not expressly disclose that each rivet of the plurality of rivets penetrates the lining layer.
Tin teaches a safety shoe comprising a rivet that penetrates, at least in part, the lining layer (Fig. 18 shows the rivets penetrating through a part of each of the rand, the upper material, and the lining layer).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin so that the rivets penetrate the rand, upper material, and the lining layer to, “strengthen(s) the existing bond between” the layers after stitching (Tin Page 3, l. 23-24).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, wherein the cut protection layer is provided on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 3 underside of #17); wherein each rivet of the plurality of rivets penetrate at least in part the rand, the upper material, and the cut protection layer (Fig. 3), but does not expressly disclose that there is a lining layer is provided on the inside of the upper material and each rivet of the plurality of rivets penetrates the lining layer.
Tin teaches a safety shoe comprising a lining layer provided on the inside of an upper material (Tin Annotated Fig. 18) and each rivet of the plurality of rivets penetrates the lining layer (Fig. 18 shows one rivet penetrating through a part of each of the rand, the upper material, the lining layer, and another rivet penetrating through the rand, connecting layer, and cut protection layer).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin so that the rivets penetrate the rand, connecting layer, and cut protection layer to, “strengthen(s) the existing bond between” the layers after initial bonding is completed (Tin Page 3, l. 23-24).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, wherein the cut protection layer is provided on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 3 #17a) but does not expressly disclose a lining layer is provided on the inside of the upper material.
Tin teaches a safety shoe comprising a lining layer provided on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 18 shows the inner layer on the inside aspect of the upper material).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin to have a lining layer on the inside of the upper material to add an additional layer of protection against chemicals or damage to the cut-protection layer if penetration occurs to the upper material.
Regarding Claim 18, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, wherein the rivets are inserted along the edge of the rand (Figs. 1 & 3), but does not expressly disclose a connecting layer, the connecting layer disposed between the rand and the upper material, the connecting layer being adhesively bonded to the rand and the upper material.
Tin teaches a safety shoe with a connecting layer (Tin Annotated Fig. 18), the connecting layer disposed between the rand and the upper material (Tin Annotated Fig. 18), the connecting layer being bonded to the rand and the upper material (Tin Annotated Fig. 18 shows the connecting layer bonded by a rivet to the rand and upper material).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin to have a connecting layer disposed between the rand and the upper material, the connecting layer being bonded to the rand and the upper material so that the connecting layer could provide, “protection against wear and impact loads for the shoe based on working environment of the user” (Tin Page 4, l. 11-12).
The modified cut-resistant shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) does not expressly disclose the connecting layer being adhesively bonded to the rand and the upper material.
Trimby teaches shoes with rands comprising an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the upper material (Page 1, l. 32-49; Figs. 1 & 2 show the rand #e bonded to the upper #c and sole #A).
Smith (as modified by Pratt, Diaz, and Tin) and Trimby teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Pratt, Diaz and Tin) as taught by Trimby to add an extra layer of bonding to the shoe so that in the event that the rivets failed, the rand would stay attached to the shoe and not fall off, thereby still protecting the wearer.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 13, wherein the rivets are inserted along the edge of the rand (Figs. 1 & 3), but does not expressly disclose a connecting layer, the connecting layer disposed between the rand and the upper material, the connecting layer being adhesively bonded to the rand and the upper material.
Tin teaches a safety shoe with a connecting layer (Tin Annotated Fig. 18), the connecting layer disposed between the rand and the upper material (Tin Annotated Fig. 18), the connecting layer being bonded to the rand and the upper material (Tin Annotated Fig. 18 shows the connecting layer bonded by a rivet to the rand and upper material).
Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin to have a connecting layer disposed between the rand and the upper material, the connecting layer being bonded to the rand and the upper material so that the connecting layer could provide, “protection against wear and impact loads for the shoe based on working environment of the user” (Tin Page 4, l. 11-12).
The modified cut-resistant shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) does not expressly disclose the connecting layer being adhesively bonded to the rand and the upper material.
Trimby teaches shoes with rands comprising an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the upper material (Page 1, l. 32-49; Figs. 1 & 2 show the rand #e bonded to the upper #c and sole #A).
Smith (as modified by Pratt, Diaz, and Tin) and Trimby teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Pratt, Diaz and Tin) as taught by Trimby to add an extra layer of bonding to the shoe so that in the event that the rivets failed, the rand would stay attached to the shoe and not fall off, thereby still protecting the wearer.
Regarding Claim 21, the modified cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith discloses the cut-resistant safety shoe according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a lining layer disposed on an inside of the upper material, wherein the cut protection layer is disposed inwardly of the lining layer and each rivet penetrates the rand, the upper material, and the lining layer but does not penetrate the cut protection layer.
Tin teaches a safety shoe comprising a lining layer (Tin Annotated Fig. 18) disposed on an inside of the upper material (Fig. 18 shows the lining layer on the inside aspect of the upper material), wherein the cut protection layer is disposed inwardly of the lining layer and each rivet penetrates the rand, the upper material, and the lining layer but does not penetrate the cut protection layer (Fig. 18).
Both Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) and Tin teach analogous inventions in the art of shoes with upper attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cut-resistant safety shoe of Smith (as modified by Trimby, Diaz, and Pratt) as taught by Tin to have a lining layer on the inside of the upper material to add an additional layer of protection against chemicals or damage to the cut-protection layer if penetration occurs to the upper material.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
594
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
353
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09 August 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1 and 13 and the 35 USC 103 of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues:
The Specification and Drawings of the instant application offer adequate support for the limitations “substantially flat” and “substantially domed” (Remarks Pgs. 9-10)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s Specification and Drawings do not set the structural limits or measures of what “substantially” means with regards to the words “flat” and “domed”. Showing the head is flat and domed (as in Fig. 3) does not define what the meets and bounds of the word “substantially” are. Further, noting what the function of the flat and domed head are when in use also does not define the meets and bounds of the word “substantially”. See 35 USC 112(b) above.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 of claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues:
Smith, Diaz, Trimby, and Pratt do not teach “that each rivet of the plurality of rivets has, on a single rivet, both (i) a substantially flat head disposed on an inside of the shoe and (ii) a substantially domed head disposed on an outside of the shoe, together with a cut protection layer that is not penetrated by the rivets and that directly covers the second planar surface of the flat inner head… Pratt's rivet head is "flat ... with no dome"-that is, Pratt discloses a head that is flat on the relevant surfaces and that lacks a dome. Pratt therefore does not supply a rivet having a substantially domed outer head, and Smith's domed feature cannot simply be grafted onto Pratt's flat rivet to arrive at a single rivet that is flat on the inside and domed on the outside without impermissible hindsight… the Office Action's articulated rationale for adopting Pratt's flat head-namely, that a manufacturer could use "inexpensive single-cap or double-cap rivets" that are "made of lightweight steel" to "decrease the cost of construction" and "decrease the weight of the shoe"- is directed to selecting an economical, lightweight rivet. That rationale provides no reason to add a domed cap to the outer side of that same rivet… A proper obviousness rejection must be supported by a rational underpinning that connects the prior-art teachings to the claimed combination, and the rationale of record does not connect the references to a single rivet bearing both a flat inner head and a domed outer head”. (Remarks Pgs. 10-11)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in Smith Annotated Fig. 3, the rivet #18 has a domed first side head on the outside of the shoe and that rivet #18 does not penetrate the cut protection layer #21, and that cut protection layer #21 directly covers the second side head of #18. Pratt, used to modify the prior art of Smith, shows in Pratt Annotated. Fig. 7 a flat inner head. The rivet of Pratt is not being used to modify the outer rivet head of Smith. Further, it is markedly well-known in the art that the rivets used in footwear can have a flat inner head and a domed outer head as the process of inserting a rivet often leaves one head domed and the other flat, and thus it is not hindsight reasoning to combing Smith and Pratt. Further, the Examiner had no reason to “add a domed cap on the outside of that same rivet” to Pratt since the primary prior art of Smith already had a domed outer head and Pratt was only being used to make the inner head flat, therefore the argument that the Examiner did not add a domed head to Pratt is moot. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
“Diaz is cited in the present rejection for a fibrous cut-protection layer that shreds, but Diaz supplies only that material; it does not teach the single-rivet dual-head geometry (a substantially flat inner head and a substantially domed outer head on the same rivet) or the non-penetration arrangement in which the cut protection layer is disposed inwardly and is not penetrated by the rivets while directly covering the second planar surface of the flat inner head,” (Remarks Pg. 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Diaz is not being used to teach the single-rivet dual-head geometry nor the non-penetration arrangement in the first place. Diaz is only being used to modify the material used for the cut protection layer #21 of Smith, and therefore is not required to teach the rivet geometry. Smith already teaches the single-rivet dual-head geometry and the non-penetration arrangement, and Pratt was used to modify the inner head of Smith to be flat (as argued above), and therefore it was not necessary to use Diaz for those two limitations. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07 and the 35 USC 103 rejection above.
“The claims require that the flat inner head be sandwiched between the upper material and the cut protection layer, that the second planar surface of the inner head be directly covered by the cut protection layer, and that the rivets penetrate the rand and the upper material but not the cut protection layer. … the Office Action does not explain why the proposed modification would produce the claimed relationship between the modified rivet, the upper material, and the cut protection layer. The rejection does not identify a teaching in Pratt that the distal planar surface of the alleged inner head should be directly covered by a cut protection layer that remains unpenetrated by the rivet. Diaz likewise does not cure this deficiency. Diaz is relied upon for fibrous chain-saw protection material, but the rejection does not identify a teaching or reason for positioning that material inwardly of the alleged flat inner head, directly against the second planar surface of that head, while simultaneously arranging the rivet to penetrate the rand and upper material but not the cut protection layer. Trimby's adhesive-bond teaching does not address these missing structural relationships… The proposed combination therefore requires more than the selection of known footwear components. It requires the references to be modified and integrated so that a particular asymmetric rivet is positioned in a particular relationship to the upper material and an inwardly disposed cut protection layer, while preserving the claimed selective nonpenetration. The Office Action does not provide an articulated reason with rational underpinning for making that complete arrangement or establish that the arrangement would result predictably from the proposed modifications.” (Remarks Pgs. 12-13)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the primary art of Smith teaches that the inner head (Smith Annotated Fig. 3 inner head of #18) be sandwiched between the upper material (Smith Fig. 3 #17) and the cut protection layer (Smith Fig. 3 #21), that the second surface of the inner head be directly covered by the cut protection layer (Smith Fig. 3), and that the rivets penetrate the rand and the upper material but not the cut protection layer (Smith Fig. 3). Pratt is used to modify the inner head to be flat and have a planar first and second surface (Pratt Annotated Fig. 7). It was not necessary for Diaz to teach anything more than the material the cut protection layer was made from (as argued above). Trimby was only used to have the rand of Smith (Smith Fig. 3 #15) utilize an adhesive bond for bonding the rand of Smith to the sole of Smith (Trimby Pg. 1:32-49; the Examiner notes it is well-known in the art to bond rands to soles using adhesive). The combination of references are used to teach already well-known combinations. To point: Smith teaches all claimed limitations except an adhesive bond for bonding the rand to the sole (Trimby), the lining having a fibrous texture and configured such that a chain by shredding (Diaz), and that the rivet head on the inside of the shoe is substantially flat (Pratt). See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claims 1 and 13; however, as discussed in the rejection below and in the arguments above, claims 1 and 13 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
