DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 2/23/26 in which claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, 16-18, 20-25 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-14, 16-18, 20-25 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The terms “the work shoe comprises a lower section…the lower section providing an underside of the work shoe” in Claim 1 Lines 8-9 and “the lower section is a single rigid base plate that extends over substantially the entire underside of the work shoe” in Claim 1 Lines 18-19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The recitations are inconsistent with each other. Lines 8-9 indicate that the lower section is the underside/the same structure as the underside, while Lines 18-19 indicates that the lower section is a separate structure from the underside, in order to extend over the underside. It is unclear which recitation is erroneous. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be interpreted as though Lines 8-9 are erroneous and should have read similarly to Lines 18-19, especially in light of amendments to Claim 20.
As such, the terms “spacer elements…mounted in the single rigid base plate” in Claim 1 Lines 20-21 and “each of the spacer elements…projects from the underside of the work shoe” in Claim 1 Lines 22-23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially as it is unclear how the base plate and the underside are related, it is unclear how the interpret the recitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered met inasmuch as the spacer elements are projecting from a plate that extends at the underside of the shoe.
Relatedly, the term “lower section that is a single rigid base plate extending over substantially an entire underside of the work shoe…spacer elements…mounted in the single rigid base plate, the spacer elements each comprising a single piece having: a visible length that projects from the underside of the work shoe” in Claim 20 Lines 2-5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear why the visible length is recited as projecting from an underside instead of the plate/lower section, as though a separate structural element. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered met inasmuch as the spacer elements are projecting from a plate that extends at the underside of the shoe.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12-14, 18, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and McKissic (USPN 6898872).
Regarding Claim 1, Rammos teaches a work shoe for use in leveling work and/or filling work and/or for aerating a lawn (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Fig. 5; abstract "devices for stabilizing the foot of a golfer during a swing"; [0034] "golf shoe 55"; Rammos teaches the shoe which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for work for use in level work and/or filling work and/or for aerating a lawn),
wherein the work shoe includes an opening for a wearer's shoeless foot to be introduced into the work shoe via the opening such that the work shoe is wearable on the wearer's shoeless foot (see Fig. 5; Rammos teaches the opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for a wearer’s shoeless foot to be introduced into the work shoe via the opening such that the shoe is wearable on the shoeless foot),
wherein the work shoe is provide with a downwardly projecting elongated spacer element (see Fig. 5),
wherein the work shoe comprises a lower section and a upper section (Fig. 5 shows upper section; lower section is [0035] “sole 53”),
the lower section providing an underside of the work shoe (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 5 for sole 53 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being at an underside of the work shoe),
wherein the lower section and the upper section are firmly and/or rigidly connected to one another (see Fig. 5),
wherein the upper section comprises a shaft region and base region (see Fig. 5),
the base region comprising a base inner side (existence of base region indicates existence of a base inner side),
wherein the shaft region and the base region together form a receiving region for the wearer's shoeless foot (see Fig. 5; Rammos teaches the receiving region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for the shoeless foot),
wherein the lower section is a single base plate that extends over substantially the entire underside of the work shoe (see Fig. 5; [0035] “sole 53” for a singular base plate extending as recited; see extrinsic evidence Dictionary.com wherein the sole meets the definition of a plate being a thin, flat material),
wherein the downwardly projecting elongated spacer element is replaceably mounted in the single base plate (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 5; [0035] "spike 51 has a screw-threaded portion 52 at its proximal end which can be removably attached to a screw-threaded receptacle 54 mounted to the sole 53 of the shoe 55"; Rammos teaches the screw-threaded receptacle which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the spacer element replaceably mounted as recited),
wherein the spacer element comprises a single piece having a visible length that projects from the underside of the work shoe and a substantially uniform cross section along a majority of the visible length (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 5),
wherein the visible length of the spacer element remains visible when the work shoe is ready for use (Rammos teaches the spacer element which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having its visible length remain visible when the work shoe is ready for use).
Rammos does not explicitly teach wherein the base plate is rigid.
Mayer teaches wherein the base plate is rigid (see Fig. 2; [0087] "each web plate 24 is preferably made of a metal material or a hard plastic material which has the properties of a metal material with regard to its flexural rigidity and strength, and in the embodiment shown, a series of recesses are arranged in the web plate 24 into which threaded bolts 26 are embedded”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ lower section with the material as taught by Mayer for the desired flexural rigidity and strength, especially as a known material for a sole to provide effective holding of a spacer element ([0087]), which Rammos is directed to as well (Fig. 5).
Rammos does not explicitly teach a plurality of downwardly projecting spacer elements.
Coleman teaches a plurality of downwardly projecting elongated spacer elements (see Figs. 3, 4; [0041] "Each removable sole plate 2 and removable heel plate 5 may carry one or more gripping projections 12 such as studs, blades, cleats or spikes; these may be permanently fixed to or integrated with the corresponding plate, or may be detachable from the plate. There may be provided interchangeable types of sole plate 2 and of heel plate 5, each of which may be chosen independently of each other, for customised performance").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos to have a plurality of the spacer elements as taught by Coleman for customized performance ([0041]).
Rammos at least suggests wherein the upper section surrounds the wearer's shoeless foot such that the inside of the shaft region and the base inner side of the base region are respectively configured to engage the wearer's shoeless foot (see Fig. 5 for at least eventually engaging).
Nevertheless, McKissic teaches wherein the upper section surrounds the wearer's shoeless foot such that the inside of the shaft region and the base inner side of the base region are respectively configured to engage the wearer's shoeless foot (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ shoe with the arrangement of McKissic as a known arrangement for a shoe, especially for golf (abstract), which Rammos is directed to as well.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos already teaches wherein the lower section at least partially comprises a hard plastic and/or aluminum (see Mayer Fig. 2; [0087] "each web plate 24 is preferably made of a metal material or a hard plastic material which has the properties of a metal material with regard to its flexural rigidity and strength, and in the embodiment shown, a series of recesses are arranged in the web plate 24 into which threaded bolts 26 are embedded”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Rammos further teaches wherein the lower section and/or the upper section comprises multiple layers (see Fig. 5 upper section with multiple layers, such as plate and upper).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein the spacer elements are replaceably fixed in the single rigid base plate by way of a screw mechanism (see Rammos Fig. 5, [0035] for replaceably fixed via screw mechanism, wherein Coleman taught a plurality and Mayer taught rigid).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein the spacer elements are, at least partially, cylindrical (see Fig. 5 Rammos, made a plurality by Coleman),
and capable of directly penetrating a floor material beneath the wearer to allow the wearer to traverse the floor material without leaving footsteps in the floor material (modified Rammos teaches the spacer elements which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of directly penetrating a floor material beneath the wearer to allow the wearer to traverse the floor material without leaving footsteps in the floor material).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein a portion of each of the spacer elements tapers to a point at an end region (see Rammos Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein the spacer elements each have the same visible length, so that an underside of the spacer elements configured to rest on a floor defines a flat contact surface (modified Rammos teaches the spacer elements with visible length, made duplicate by Coleman, and therefore having the same visible length which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of each underside configured to rest on a floor defines a flat contact surface).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Rammos does not explicitly teach wherein a safety element in a form of a steel, plastic, and/or aluminum cap is arranged in an upper and/or front region of the upper section.
Mayer further teaches wherein a safety element in a form of a steel, plastic, and/or aluminum cap is arranged in an upper and/or front region of the upper section ([0048] "protective cap made of steel, aluminum, titanium or plastic incorporated into the front part of the shoe…to protect the toes").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ shoe with the safety element as taught by Mayer in order to protect a wearer’s toes ([0048]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein the work shoe is configured for leveling a floor (modified Rammos teaches the work shoe which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of leveling a floor).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Rammos further teaches wherein the upper section is designed to be open in a rear region or in a heel region (see Fig. 5).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and McKissic (USPN 6898872), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Glancy et al (USPN 11071350), herein Glancy.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Rammos does not explicitly teach wherein the upper section at least partially comprises a flexible elastomer.
Glancy teaches wherein the upper section at least partially comprises a flexible elastomer (Col. 5 Lines 2-4 "various material that may be used to construct the upper 120 include…leather…rubber").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ upper section material as taught by Glancy depending on the degree of stretchability and compressibility desired for a sports shoe (Col. 4 Lines 53-61), which Rammos is directed to as well (abstract).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and McKissic (USPN 6898872), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Grateful Golfer (NPL).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Rammos at least suggests wherein the visible length of the spacer elements is in a range between 20 mm and 80 mm (see Rammos Fig. 5; abstract "to hold a spike, such as a golf tee", wherein Coleman provided a plurality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the length and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Nevertheless, as aforementioned, Rammos is referring to a golf tee.
Furthermore, Grateful Golfer teaches wherein the visible length of the spacer element/golf tee is in a range between 20 mm and 80 mm (“golf tees…2 1/8” tees…2 ¾” tees… 3 ¼” tees…4” tees”, wherein the claimed range is 0.787”-3.15”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ spacer elements/tees, as made into a plurality by Coleman, of the range recited by Grateful Golfer based on the size of club used by user (Grateful Golfer), especially as Rammos is in the same art of endeavor.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and McKissic (USPN 6898872), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Grant (USPN 5655317).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Rammos at least suggests wherein a spacer element comprises galvanized steel pins ([0010] "spike can be made of plastic, metal, wood or other suitable material").
Grant teaches wherein the spacer elements comprise galvanized steel pins (see Fig. 3; Col. 5 Lines 43-45 "stud 12 is preferably formed of a one piece construction from steel coated with a thin layer of zinc", wherein it is known in the art that zinc-coated steel is from galvanization, see extrinsic evidence Merriam-Webster Galvanize NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ metal spacer element, made a plurality by Coleman, to be galvanized steel pins as taught by Grant for appearance and durability (Col. 5 Line 45).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 16, 17, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and McKissic (USPN 6898872), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Klavano (US Publication 2008/0155855).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 25.
Klavano further teaches wherein the heel strap is adjustable by way of a push button such that a snug fit of the work shoe on the wearer's shoeless foot is achieved (see Fig. 1; [0024] "heel strap 120...includes ...intermediate portion 122 and stretchably elastic end portions 124"; [0025] "end portions 124 each have a proximal end that is fixedly attached to the intermediate portion 122…and a distal end that is removably attachable to sole 102 with a sole 126 via an attachment point").
Regarding Claim 17, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Rammos does not explicitly teach ventilation openings in the upper section.
Klavano teaches ventilation openings in the upper section (see Fig. 1; [0020] "instep upper portion 104 …includes a number of upper apertures 106").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ upper section with the ventilation openings as taught by Klavano in order to provide ventilation, reduce weight, and/or add desirable aesthetic attributes ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 24.
Rammos does not explicitly teach wherein a heel strap is provided in the rear region of the upper section.
Klavano further teaches wherein a heel strap is provided in the rear region of the upper section (see Fig. 1; [0024] "heel strap 120...includes ...intermediate portion 122 and stretchably elastic end portions 124”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ rear region with a heel strap as taught by Klavano as a known arrangement for sports shoes ([0003], [0028]) which Rammos is as well (abstract), in order to provide various modes of the shoe in use ([0028]) and/or for shock absorbing ([0025]).
SECOND REJECTION: as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 20, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and Klavano (US Publication 2008/0155855).
Regarding Claim 20, Rammos teaches a work shoe (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Fig. 5; abstract "devices for stabilizing the foot of a golfer during a swing"; [0034] "golf shoe 55"; Rammos teaches the shoe which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for work), comprising:
a lower section that is a single base plate extending over substantially an entire underside of the work shoe (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 5; [0035] “sole 53” for a singular base plate extending as recited; see extrinsic evidence Dictionary.com wherein the sole meets the definition of a plate being a thin, flat material),
a downwardly projecting elongated spacer element that is replaceably mounted in the single base plate (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 5; [0035] "spike 51 has a screw-threaded portion 52 at its proximal end which can be removably attached to a screw-threaded receptacle 54 mounted to the sole 53 of the shoe 55"; Rammos teaches the screw-threaded receptacle which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the spacer element replaceably mounted as recited),
the spacer element comprising a single piece having a visible length that projects from the underside of the work shoe and a substantially uniform cross section along a majority of the visible length (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 5),
wherein the visible length of the spacer element remains visible when the work shoe is ready for use (see Fig. 5; Rammos teaches the spacer element which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having its visible length remain visible when the work shoe is ready for use),
an upper section that is firmly and/or rigidly connected to the lower section (see Fig. 5),
wherein the upper section has an opening in a rear region or in a heel region for a wearer's shoeless foot to be introduced into the work shoe via the opening such that the work shoe is worn directly on the wearer's shoeless foot (see Fig. 5; Rammos teaches the opening as recited which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for a wearer’s shoeless foot to be introduced into the work shoe via the opening such that the shoe is wearable on the shoeless foot).
Rammos does not explicitly teach wherein the base plate is rigid.
Mayer teaches wherein the base plate is rigid (see Fig. 2; [0087] "each web plate 24 is preferably made of a metal material or a hard plastic material which has the properties of a metal material with regard to its flexural rigidity and strength, and in the embodiment shown, a series of recesses are arranged in the web plate 24 into which threaded bolts 26 are embedded”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ lower section with the material as taught by Mayer for the desired flexural rigidity and strength, especially as a known material for a sole to provide effective holding of a spacer element ([0087]), which Rammos is directed to as well (Fig. 5).
Rammos does not explicitly teach a plurality of downwardly projecting spacer elements.
Coleman teaches a plurality of downwardly projecting elongated spacer elements (see Figs. 3, 4; [0041] "Each removable sole plate 2 and removable heel plate 5 may carry one or more gripping projections 12 such as studs, blades, cleats or spikes; these may be permanently fixed to or integrated with the corresponding plate, or may be detachable from the plate. There may be provided interchangeable types of sole plate 2 and of heel plate 5, each of which may be chosen independently of each other, for customised performance").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos to have a plurality of the spacer elements as taught by Coleman for customized performance ([0041]).
Rammos does not explicitly teach a heel strap in the rear region or in the heel region of the upper section.
Klavano teaches a heel strap is provided in the rear region of the upper section (see Fig. 1; [0024] "heel strap 120...includes ...intermediate portion 122 and stretchably elastic end portions 124”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rammos’ rear region of the upper section with a heel strap as taught by Klavano as a known arrangement for sports shoes ([0003], [0028]) which Rammos is as well (abstract), in order to provide various modes of the shoe in use ([0028]) and/or for shock absorbing ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 20.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein the spacer elements are capable of directly penetrating a floor material beneath the wearer to allow the wearer to traverse the floor material without leaving footsteps in the floor material (modified Rammos teaches the spacer elements which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of directly penetrating a floor material beneath the wearer to allow the wearer to traverse the floor material without leaving footsteps in the floor material).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 20.
Modified Rammos further teaches wherein an underside of the spacer elements configured to rest on a floor defines a flat contact surface (modified Rammos teaches the spacer elements with visible length, made duplicate by Coleman, and therefore having the same visible length which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of each underside configured to rest on a floor defines a flat contact surface).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammos et al (US Publication 2012/0329567), herein Rammos, in view of Mayer (DE 102010/044816), Coleman (US Publication 2018/0153255) and Klavano (US Publication 2008/0155855), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Grateful Golfer (NPL).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Rammos teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 20.
The body of Claim 21 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, 16-18, 20-25 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on 9 that Rammos is a sole and not a base plate—examiner respectfully disagrees. Inasmuch as any structure or materials have been provided to narrow the interpretation of “base plate”, the sole of Rammos meets the required structure of the claimed term “base plate.” Rammos’ sole is a base and is a surface/plate. See also extrinsic evidence Dictionary.com, wherein a plate is merely a thin flat material, which is met by Rammos’ sole, especially as thin is a relative term. Not until previous Claim 6 indicating that the base plate is “rigid” is further structure assigned to the term that would require more than Rammos’ disclosure of a sole. This is also reflected in the instant rejection. Remarks are construing a narrower interpretation than is currently required by broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claims. Based on [0018], [0019], no other structure has been disclosed for the base plate. Even if the specification disclosed additional structure, Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111. In other words, further structure would have to be claimed to narrow the interpretation of “base plate,” but no such structure has been found in the original disclosure.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Rammos [0006] provides a clear reason for providing only a single spike and therefore cannot be modified with Coleman to provide a plurality of spikes—examiner respectfully disagrees. Rammos [0006] merely indicates the advantages of a spike, but does not explicitly teach away from having a plurality.
Relatedly, pertaining to remarks on page 9 that modifying Rammos with Coleman’s plurality would make the shoe unsuitable for a golfer—examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, Coleman further teaches golf shoes desiring a plurality of grip points ([0002]). No other evidence has been provided to support the statement in the remarks.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the actual modification for combining Rammos and Coleman as provided on page 6 of the previous office action 8/22/25 has not been addressed.
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 that Mayer does not teach the amended recitation of claim 1 because Mayer does not teach a single rigid base plate representing the entire underside of the work shoe—examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims indicate that the plate extends substantially over an entire underside. There are also indefiniteness issues as to how the plate represents the underside. Even ignoring these issues, Rammos already teaches a base plate, as aforementioned. Rammos also teaches a single base plate that extends substantially across an underside of the shoe. Rammos merely does not teach rigidity, which is met by Mayer, both Rammos and Mayer being in the art of endeavor as soles/base plates. Furthermore, examiner notes the actual motivation to combine with Mayer as previously indicated in Claim 6 on page 10 has not been addressed. As such, the remarks are piecemeal; they do not take into the account the actual rejection, modification, and motivation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 as to Mayer teaching the spacer elements—examiner notes these remarks are not applicable as this was already addressed with Coleman.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights