SHOE

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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are amended. Claims 4-6 and 18-21 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 7-17 for Species 3 are presented for examination on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-3, 7-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. (US 2009/0031584 A1), in view of Hurd et al. (WO 2018/175734 A1). Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen discloses a shoe (100), comprising: a sole (110, 180) having a facing surface (Fig. 6, where a facing surface is the surface of 180 facing 160, 162, and 166); an upper portion (120) disposed above the sole (Figs. 1 & 6) and configured to surround a foot insertion part (Figs. 1 & 7 show the cavity above 110); and a buffer member (150) including a body part (150, 151, 153, 156, 157; para. 43) and a movable part (190; paras. 42 & 70 disclose 158 of 150 exposes a resilient and cushioning midsole 190; Fig. 8) that are both configured to contact the facing surface but are not bonded to the facing surface (Figs. 6-7; para. 62, “stability layer 150 may rest on midsole layer 180 or may detachably connect to midsole layer 180”; Fig. 8 & para. 70 disclose 190 is a portion of 150, and therefore, 190 is also detachably connected to 180), the movable part having a lower surface (para. 70; a lower surface of the movable part is the ground facing surface of 190) and being configured to be accommodated within the foot insertion part (Figs. 6-7 shows 150 within the cavity above 110, and therefore, 190 is also within the cavity above 110), the movable part being a single member (Fig. 8) formed from a resin foam material (para. 64 discloses 190 is made of EVA), the movable part having an elliptical shape along an inner circumferential surface of the body part (Fig. 8, where the inner circumferential surface of 150 matches the outer elliptical shape of 190), the lower surface of the movable part of the buffer member including a projection part (para. 70, the ground facing surface of 190 that is exposed and projects around 158 when a load is applied; Fig. 7) projecting toward the facing surface that faces the lower surface (paras. 64 & 70; Figs. 7-8), the body part including a recess part (opening 158) adjacent to the projection part (Fig. 4) and recessed from the projection part toward the upper portion (Figs. 4 & 6-7), and a circumferential edge projection part projecting (160), around the recess part (Figs. 4, 6-7), toward the facing surface with respect to the projection part (Figs. 6-7), when the buffer member receives a predetermined first load (Fig. 6 as assembled without a wearer’s foot load), the circumferential edge projection part contacts the facing surface whereas the projection part has no contact with the facing surface (para. 66; Fig. 6; Fig. 4 shows 158 has an edge around the opening, and therefore, 190 rests above the edge of 158 and “has no contact with the facing surface” inasmuch as claimed), and when the buffer member receives a predetermined second load (para. 60; para. 62, “Stability layer 150 may effectively transfer loads to midsole layer 180”; Fig. 7 as assembled with a wearer’s foot load), which is larger than the first load (Fig. 7 & para. 60 discloses a displacement of a compressed material, and therefore “larger than the first load” compared to Fig. 6), the circumferential edge projection part and the projection part contact the facing surface (Fig. 7 & para. 60). Rasmussen does not directly disclose the movable part having a truncated elliptical cone shape along an inner circumferential surface of the body part. However, Hurd discloses a movable part (64; Fig. 42) having a truncated elliptical cone shape (Fig. 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elliptical shaped movable part of Rasmussen to be a truncated elliptical cone shape, as taught by Hurd, in order to provide more comfort to the wearer. Further, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. When in combination, Rasmussen and Hurd disclose the movable part having a truncated elliptical cone shape along an inner circumferential surface of the body part. Regarding claim 2, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 1, wherein a space (see annotated Fig. 8 below) in a width direction (see annotated Fig. 8 below) between a peripheral wall surface of the buffer member and the upper portion is larger (Fig. 8, where the peripheral wall surface of 150 is the outer edge of 150) than a space in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 8, where the longitudinal direction is from the heel to the toe regions of 150 and 156; see annotated Fig. 8 below) between the peripheral wall surface and the upper portion (see annotated Fig. 8 below). PNG media_image1.png 491 424 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 1, wherein the recess part intervenes between the projection part and the circumferential edge projection part in a width direction (see annotated Fig. 8 above of claim 2 rejection), and extension in a width direction of the buffer member receiving a downward load is larger than extension in a longitudinal direction thereof (inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant, the extension in a width direction of the buffer member under load would be larger than extension in a longitudinal direction, as Rasmussen discloses all of the claimed structure). Regarding claim 7, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 1, wherein the body part has an outer shape (Figs. 3-4 & 7) extending along the foot insertion part (para. 43 as assembled) and includes an accommodation part (151, 153, 157) configured to accommodate at least part of the movable part (Fig. 3 including 190 as disclosed in paras. 42 & 70), and when a downward load is applied to the buffer member, the movable part moves downward with respect to the body part (para. 70, where 190 is a cushioning resilient member, and therefore, moves downward with respect to 150). Regarding claim 8, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein the accommodation part includes an opening part (Figs. 3-4 shows the space within 158 and above/within 160 as “an opening part”) disposed in a middle part (Fig. 3-4, the diameter of 158 from the lateral to medial side is “a middle part”) in a width direction of the body part (Fig. 3-4, the diameter of 158 from the lateral to medial side is “a middle part”, and the lateral to medial side at the diameter of 158 is a width direction of the body part). Regarding claim 9, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 8, wherein the accommodation part includes the inner circumferential surface and has a tapered shape (Fig. 3, the tapered shape of 151, 153, and 157 shows the taper toward 155; Figs. 3 & 8 also show that 151, 153, and 157 are integral with the inner circumferential surface of 150). Regarding claim 10, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 9, wherein an outer circumferential surface (Fig. 6: where the outer circumferential surface is the exterior surface of 151, 153, 157 facing 120) of the movable part extends along the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 6, once assembled). Regarding claim 11, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein, when the buffer member receives the first load, the movable part is positioned away upward from the facing surface (para. 66; Fig. 6; Fig. 4 shows 158 has an edge around the opening, and therefore, 190 rests above the edge of 158 and “is positioned away upward from the facing surface” inasmuch as claimed). Regarding claim 12, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein the movable part is one of a plurality of movable parts (190 is one of 155 and 190; para. 43 discloses 151 of 150 includes 155) provided with a space in between and along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 3 shows a longitudinal direction extending between the toe and heel region/direction). Regarding claim 13, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein the movable part has a planar shape of an ellipse (Figs. 7-8) of which a longitudinal dimension is larger than a width dimension (Fig. 8, where the width dimension of 190 is along the lateral and medial sides of 190, and the longitudinal dimension is perpendicular to the width dimension). Regarding claim 14, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein a hardness of a material of the movable part is different from a hardness of a material of the body part (para. 70, where 190 is softer and more cushioning resilient material than 150). Regarding claim 16, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein an area of the body part in contact with the facing surface is different between a medial side portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below, where the rectangle depicts “an area” in contact with the facing surface between a medial and lateral side portion) and a lateral side portion of the body part (see annotated Fig. 4 below, and the area between the medial and lateral side portions are differently contacting the facing surface when assembled because of the snake shape of 160 as described in para. 34). PNG media_image2.png 370 541 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. (US 2009/0031584 A1) and Hurd et al. (WO 2018/175734 A1), in view of Iuchi et al. (US 2018/0027923 A1). Regarding claim 15, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein the material body has a hardness (para. 38, the TPU material of 150 has a hardness), between which along a width direction the movable part is disposed (Figs. 3 & 8, where a width direction runs from the medial to the lateral side of 150). Rasmussen does not directly disclose wherein a hardness of a material of the body part is different between a medial side portion and a lateral side portion thereof. However, Iuchi teaches wherein a hardness (para. 66) of a material of the body part (2, 3) is different between a medial side portion (see annotated Fig. 14 below in circled area & para. 66) and a lateral side portion thereof (see annotated Fig. 14 below in rectangle area & para. 66). PNG media_image3.png 217 409 media_image3.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hardness of the body part of Rasmussen to be a different hardness between a medial side portion and a lateral side portion thereof, as taught by Iuchi, in order to improve the cushioning property at the time of a heel-impact on the ground. 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. Regarding claim 17, modified Rasmussen discloses the shoe according to claim 7, wherein a friction coefficient between the body part and the facing surface exists (paras. 38 & 63, the friction coefficient exists between the body part and the facing surface because 150 and the facing surface are made of materials), between which the movable part is disposed (Figs. 6-7). Rasmussen does not directly disclose wherein a friction coefficient between the body part and the facing surface is different between a medial side portion and a lateral side portion of the body part. However, Iuchi teaches wherein a friction coefficient (para. 66, where the materials of 2 and 3 have a friction coefficient) between the body part (2, 3) and the facing surface (Fig. 14, the upper surface of 4) is different between a medial side portion and a lateral side portion of the body part (see annotated Fig. 14 above of claim 16 rejection, where the friction coefficient of the medial and lateral sides are different because the hardness of the medial and lateral side are different). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the friction coefficient between the body part and the facing surface of Rasmussen to be different between a medial side portion and a lateral side portion of the body part, as taught by Iuchi, in order to improve the cushioning property at the time of a heel-impact on the ground. 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant' s arguments, which are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion 15 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET. 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. /G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732 /KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732