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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 07/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-14, 16, 24, and 26-33 are presented.
Claims 1, 26, and 28 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claims 2, 4, and 9 are amended.
Dependent claims 30-33 are new.
The present office action treats claims 1-2, 4, 8-14, 16, 24, and 26-33 on the merits.
The present office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 07/28/2025 are fully considered (see p. 6-10 of the reply).
Regarding the objections to Claims 2 and 4 (p. 6 lines 8-10): Applicant’s remarks are fully considered. Applicant’s claim amendments render the claim objections as applied in the previous office action moot.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, and 24 (p. 6-7); the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 9 (p. 7), the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 26-27 (p. 7-9), the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 28-29 (p. 9-10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom on April 29 2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1905990.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Attention is drawn to the office action of 01/28/2025 box 12, which states, by checking box 12a in error, that all copies of the priority documents have been received. In the office action of 01/28/2025, Box 12c should have been checked instead of box a but was not. The present office action correctly checks box c; refer to the office action summary attached herewith.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for urging comprises an expandable footbed in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 24, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Morris, US 2,579,953, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Morris discloses:
Footwear (“SHOE GRIPPER”; Title), comprising:
an outsole (those elements of the footwear excluding the straps thereof; no specific numeral is provided for the entire outsole; certain elements thereof are identified hereinbelow) comprising multiple interlocking outsole portions (see first continuous outsole portion and second continuous outsole portion thereof in annotated Figs. 1-4 – a below), wherein the outsole has a length (see annotated Figs. 1-4 – a below) that extends in a longitudinal dimension, a width (see annotated Figs. 1-4 – a below) that extends in a transverse dimension, and a depth (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) that extends in a vertical dimension, wherein the length is greater than the width and the width is greater than the depth (as in annotated Figs. 1-4 – a below), wherein the multiple interlocking outsole portions comprise interlocking teeth 8, 17, wherein the interlocking teeth 8, 17 are arranged to enable expansion of the outsole in the longitudinal (col. 3 lines 1-4) and transverse (col. 2 lines 29-42) dimensions, but not the vertical dimension (8 and 17 are configured such that longitudinal and transverse expansion can occur without any vertical dimension expansion via movement of 8 and/or 17 within their respective recesses 6, 2 and without expanding the outsole in the vertical dimension), and wherein the interlocking teeth 8, 17 are provided on a first continuous outsole portion (see annotated Figs. 1-4 – a below; 8 of the interlocking teeth is provided on the first continuous outsole portion; the first continuous outsole portion is continuous in that 13 and 8 are continuously connected to each other via at least 10) of the multiple interlocking outsole portions and a second continuous outsole portion (see annotated Figs. 1-4 – a below; 17 of the interlocking teeth is provided on the second continuous outsole portion, which is a continuous portion as described in col. 3 lines 5-8) of the multiple interlocking outsole portions, and wherein the interlocking teeth are configured to interlock (8 is configured to interlock with 6; 17 is configured to interlock with 2; in addition, 8 and 2 are configured to interlock with other, unspecified, structure) and enable relative longitudinal (first and second continuous outsole portions are configured to move longitudinal relative to each other via 17) and transverse (first and second continuous outsole portions are configured to move transvers relative to each other via 8) movement of the first and second continuous outsole portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
955
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the footwear comprises means 14, 14, 20 (i.e. the combined ring 20 and both rings 14) for urging the first continuous outsole portion away from the second continuous outsole portion, and the means for urging is configured to cause longitudinal and transverse expansion of the outsole (means 14, 14, 20 is configured such that an individual can pull the first and second continuous outsole portions away from each other while each tooth is accommodated within its respective recess such that means is configured to cause longitudinal and transverse expansion of the outsole as claimed).
Regarding claim 4:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the means for urging the first continuous outsole portion away from the second continuous outsole portion creates or increases a gap (either of the two gaps identified in see annotated Figs. 1-4 – b below) within a region (see annotated Figs. 1-4 – b below) occupied by the interlocking teeth.
PNG
media_image2.png
955
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable simultaneous expansion of the outsole in the longitudinal and transverse dimensions (interlocking teeth are configured such that outsole is capable of expanding in longitudinal dimension via 17 moving within its recess while outsole is capable of expanding in transverse dimension via 8 moving within its recess).
Regarding claim 10:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion of a toe region of the outsole (a toe region is capable of expanding in at least the transverse dimension via movement of 8 within its recess).
Regarding claim 11:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion of an instep region of the outsole (an instep region is capable of expanding in at least the transverse dimension via movement of 8 within its recess).
Regarding claim 12:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion of a heel region of the outsole (a heel region is capable of expanding in at least the longitudinal dimension via movement of 17 within its recess).
Regarding claim 24:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the footwear is a shoe, a trainer, a sneaker, a boot, a slipper or a sandal. (The footwear comprises an upper comprising the straps of the footwear such that the footwear is a shoe.)
Regarding claim 30:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth project in a direction non-parallel to the vertical direction (tooth 8 projects in a direction parallel to the transverse dimension that is not parallel to the vertical direction; tooth 17 projects in a direction parallel to the longitudinal dimension that is not parallel to the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 31:
Morris discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Morris further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth of the first continuous outsole portion are configured to intermesh with the interlocking teeth of the second continuous portion.
(footwear is configured such that it can be disassembled into its constituent parts via at least unthreading the screws thereof so as to permit teeth 8, 17 to be brought into contact with each other so as to be engaged with each other; it is noted that the term “intermesh” means (emphases provided by Examiner) “Of gears, etc.: to mesh or interlock with one another” (Oxford English Dictionary, “intermesh (v.),” December 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2345877231.) and the term “mesh” means “Of the teeth of a wheel, etc.: to be engaged with another piece of machinery” (Oxford English Dictionary, “mesh (v.), sense 4.a,” June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5422926704.)
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-13, 24, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Lee, KR-20140063236-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses (Figs. 1-6):
Footwear (the “adjuster” of Figs. 1-6, no specific numeral is provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow), comprising:
an outsole 10, 10, 20, 20, 40, 40, and 320 (i.e. the combined 10, 10, 20, 20, 40, 40, and 320) comprising multiple interlocking outsole portions 10, 10, 20, 20, 40, 40, wherein the outsole has a length (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) that extends in a longitudinal dimension, a width (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) that extends in a transverse dimension, and a depth (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) that extends in a vertical dimension, wherein the length is greater than the width and the width is greater than the depth (as in annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below), wherein the multiple interlocking outsole portions comprise interlocking teeth 30, 30A, 30B (i.e. the bolt tooth of each of 30, 30A, 30B wherein “Each fastening member 30...is composed of a bolt and a nut” (para 43) such that the bolt of each of 30, 30A, 30B is an interlocking tooth configured to interlock with its corresponding nut), wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion of the outsole in the longitudinal (Fig. 5a and 5b) and transverse dimensions (Fig. 4), but not the vertical dimension (teeth of 30, 30A, 30B are configured to permit longitudinal and/or transverse expansion while outsole maintains its same depth such that teeth are arranged to enable expansion as claimed), and wherein the interlocking teeth are provided on a first continuous outsole portion 10, 40 (i.e. the one of 10 and the one of 40 identified in annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below which are continuous as evidenced via at least their continuous connection via 32 connecting 10 and 40) of the multiple interlocking outsole portions and a second continuous outsole portion 20 (i.e. the one of 20 identified in annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) of the multiple interlocking outsole portions, and wherein the interlocking teeth are configured to interlock (each tooth is configured to interlock with at least its corresponding nut) and enable relative longitudinal and transverse movement of the first and second continuous outsole portions (Figs. 4 and 5a-5b).
PNG
media_image3.png
1035
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the footwear comprises means 50, 50 (i.e. the combined 50 and 50) for urging the first continuous outsole portion away from the second continuous outsole portion, and the means for urging is configured to cause longitudinal and transverse expansion of the outsole.
(the combined 50 and 50 is configured such that an individual can exert a force thereon so as to urge the first continuous outsole portion away from the second continuous outsole portion so as to cause longitudinal and transverse expansion as claimed.)
Regarding claim 4:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the means 50, 50 (i.e. the combined 50 and 50) for urging the first continuous outsole portion away from the second continuous outsole portion creates or increases a gap (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – b below) within a region (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – b below) occupied by the interlocking teeth.
PNG
media_image4.png
1035
767
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable simultaneous expansion of the outsole in the longitudinal and transverse dimensions.
(teeth are configured such that expansion in longitudinal (Figs. 5a and 5b) and transverse (Fig. 4) dimensions can occur at the same time)
Regarding claim 9:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are stacked in the vertical dimension (30A and 30B are so stacked; 30 and 30 nearest 320 are so stacked) and in the length direction (all three of 30 are so stacked).
Regarding claim 10:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion (at least transverse expansion by moving 10 and 10 away from each other as in Fig. 4) of a toe region (wherein the toe region is near 32 as evidenced in Fig. 7) of the outsole.
Regarding claim 11:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion (at least transverse expansion by moving 10 and 10 away from each other as in Fig. 4) of an instep region (wherein the instep region is near one of 70as evidenced in Fig. 7) of the outsole.
Regarding claim 12:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion (at least transverse expansion by moving 20 and 20 away from each other as in Fig. 4) of a heel region (wherein the heel region is near one of 70 as evidenced in Fig. 7) of the outsole.
Regarding claim 13:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 2, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the means for urging 50, 50 comprises an expandable footbed (the combined 50 and 50 is a footbed as evidenced in Fig. 7 and is capable of expanding in at least the transverse dimension such that it is an expandable footbed).
Regarding claim 24:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the footwear is a shoe, a trainer, a sneaker, a boot, a slipper or a sandal.
(straps 70 of Lee are an upper such that Lee Figs. 1-6 is a shoe comprising an outsole and an upper).
Regarding claim 30:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth project in a direction non-parallel to the vertical dimension (teeth 30B project as claimed; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 31:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth of the first continuous outsole portion are configured to intermesh with the interlocking teeth of the second continuous portion.
(each tooth is a bolt tooth of a bolt-nut combination; a bolt is capable of being brought into contact with and thereby engaging with another bolt such that the limitation is met; it is noted that the term “intermesh” means (emphases provided by Examiner) “Of gears, etc.: to mesh or interlock with one another” (Oxford English Dictionary, “intermesh (v.),” December 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2345877231.) and the term “mesh” means “Of the teeth of a wheel, etc.: to be engaged with another piece of machinery” (Oxford English Dictionary, “mesh (v.), sense 4.a,” June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5422926704.)
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Lee, KR-20140063236-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 26:
Lee discloses (Figs. 1-7):
Footwear (the “adjuster” of Figs. 1-6, no specific numeral is provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow), comprising:
an outsole 120, 220, 320 (i.e. the combined 120, 220, and 320) comprising multiple interlocking outsole portions, wherein the outsole has a length (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below) that extends in a longitudinal dimension, a width (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below) that extends in a transverse dimension, and a depth (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below) that extends in a vertical dimension, wherein the length is greater than the width and the width is greater than the depth (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below), wherein the multiple interlocking outsole portions comprise a base portion 10, 40 (i.e. the combined one of 10 and one of 40 identified in annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below) and multiple peripheral outsole portions 10, 20, 50 (i.e. the other of 10 identified in annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below; the one of 20 identified in annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below; the one of 50 identified in annotated Figs. 2-3 – c below) interlocked with the base portion by interlocking teeth 30, 30A, 30B (i.e. the bolt tooth of each of 30, 30A, 30B wherein “Each fastening member 30...is composed of a bolt and a nut” (para 43) such that the bolt of each of 30, 30A, 30B is an interlocking tooth configured to interlock with its corresponding nut), wherein the interlocking teeth enable expansion of the multiple peripheral outsole portions relative to the base portion in both the longitudinal (Fig. 5a and 5b) and transverse (Fig. 4) dimensions (teeth are configured to enable the multiple peripheral outsole portions 10, 20, 50 to move away from the base portion (see particularly the arrows in each of Figs. 4, 5a, 5b) and also teeth are configured to enable the multiple peripheral outsole portions to move away from one another, thereby expanding relative to the base portion, such that the interlocking teeth enable expansion of the multiple peripheral outsole portions relative to the base portion in both the longitudinal (Fig. 5a and 5b) and transverse (Fig. 4) dimensions as claimed).
PNG
media_image5.png
1035
844
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 26, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the footwear comprises means (70) for urging at least one of the multiple outsole portions away from at least a second one of the multiple outsole portions, thereby expanding the outsole.
(70 is configured such that an individual can exert a force thereon so as to urge an outsole portion away from another outsole portion in either or both of the longitudinal and transverse directions.)
Claim(s) 28-29 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Lee, KR-20140063236-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 28:
Lee discloses (Figs. 1-7):
Footwear (the “adjuster” of Figs. 1-6, no specific numeral is provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow), comprising:
an outsole 120, 220, 320 (i.e. the combined 120, 220, and 320) comprising multiple interlocking outsole portions 10, 10, 20, 20, 40, 40, wherein the outsole has a length (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a presented in above treatment of claim 1) that extends in a longitudinal dimension, a width (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a presented in above treatment of claim 1) that extends in a transverse dimension, and a depth (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a presented in above treatment of claim 1) that extends in a vertical dimension, wherein the length is greater than the width and the width is greater than the depth (as in annotated Figs. 2-3 – a presented in above treatment of claim 1), wherein the multiple interlocking outsole portions comprise a first set of interlocking teeth 30, 30A (i.e. the bolt tooth of each of 30 and 30A wherein “Each fastening member 30...is composed of a bolt and a nut” (para 43) such that the bolt of each of 30, 30A is an interlocking tooth configured to interlock with its corresponding nut) and a second set of interlocking teeth 30B (i.e. the bolt tooth of each of 30B wherein “Each fastening member 30...is composed of a bolt and a nut” (para 43) such that the bolt of each of 30B is an interlocking tooth configured to interlock with its corresponding nut), and wherein the first set of interlocking teeth have teeth 30, 30A that project at a different angle (Fig. 3) than teeth 30B of the second set of interlocking teeth.
Regarding claim 29:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 28, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the footwear comprises means (70) for urging at least one of the multiple outsole portions away from at least a second one of the multiple outsole portions, thereby expanding the outsole.
(70 is configured such that an individual can exert a force thereon so as to urge an outsole portion away from another outsole portion in either or both of the longitudinal and transverse directions.)
Regarding claim 32:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 28, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the interlocking teeth are arranged to enable expansion of the outsole in the longitudinal (Figs. 5a-5b) and transverse (Fig. 4) dimensions.
Regarding claim 33:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 28, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein at least some of the teeth of the first set of interlocking teeth or the second set of interlocking teeth project at an angle that is closer to the longitudinal dimension than the transverse dimension (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – d below).
PNG
media_image6.png
1035
767
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lee, KR-20140063236-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Lee discloses The footwear as claimed in claim 13, as set forth above.
Lee Figs. 1-6 does not expressly disclose wherein the expandable footbed 50, 50 forms part of an insock.
However and in further view of Lee:
Lee Fig. 14 teaches an insock (the combined 50, 50, 110 wherein “insole member 110 is provided on the top surface of each upper extending member 50”; para 105) wherein the expandable footbed 50, 50 forms part of the insock (i.e. 50, 50 is part of the combined 50, 50, 110).
Lee further teaches that combining 110 with the expandable footbed to yield the insock “may not only have good fit, but may also aid in comfortable walking due to feet or fatigue even when worn for a long period of time” (para 107).
It 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 to have modified the footwear of Lee Figs. 1-6 such that its expandable footbed forms part of an insock, as in Lee Fig. 14, in order to provide a good fit, aid in comfortable walking, and/or prevent fatigue, as taught by Lee (para 107).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
/G.A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732