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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-17 are presented.
The present Office action treats claims 1, 3-4, and 6-17 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s R E M A R K S of 10/20/2025 (see p. 5-8 of the reply) are fully considered.
Applicant argues (p. 6):
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on the combination of references allegedly rendering the claimed configuration obvious. However, the specific selection and positioning of traction-enhancing elements in the claimed invention provides unexpected advantages and is not suggested nor motivated by the cited art.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with the claim language and is not commensurate with the rejections as applied in the Office action of 05/29/2025. It is noted that no claim recites “traction-enhancing elements” or “traction-enhancing element”
In response to applicant's argument that unexpected advantages are obtained: the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues (p. 6):
1. Specific selection not taught or suggested
While one reference discloses a retractable crampon located at the heel (Parissenti), and other (Osgood, Nicholson, and Lee) teaches granular non-slip material on both the heel and sole, the claimed configuration-a crampon solely at the heel and a granular non-slip element solely on the sole portion-is not taught nor suggested in the art.
This asymmetrical configuration is not a mere arbitrary combination. As described in the specification:
- The granular non-slip element is located in the sole portion because it improves grip during the flexing and pushing phase of walking ([0037]).
- The retractable crampon, on the other hand, is provided only at the heel, where it is most useful during slipping events ([0038]).
Thus, the distribution of elements is optimized for different phases of motion-a nuanced teaching absent from the prior art.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a crampon solely at the heel” and “a granular non-slip element solely on the sole portion”; “crampon...provided only at the heel”; “asymmetrical configuration”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
To the extent that Applicant’s arguments are directed to claim language “at least one granular non-slip element...positioned within the sole portion” and “only one retractable crampon...that is mounted to the heel portion” (claim 1 lines 4-7), Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive in that the prior art relied upon in the previous Office action teaches these features (see the rejections of claim 1 generally and specifically at p. 3 lines 3-4; annotated Fig. 1 – a on p. 4; p. 5 line 18-26; p. 19 lines 16-21; p. 21 lines 8-19; p. 32 lines 5-10; p. 33 line 20 – p. 34 line 16 of the Office action of 05/29/2025), and 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 invention pertains to have modified the outsole of Parissenti such that it meets the argued limitation “at least one granular non-slip element...positioned within the sole portion” as explained in the previous Office action (see p. 6 lines 7-12; the paragraph spanning p. 21-22; the paragraph spanning p. 34-35 of the Office action of 05/29/2025).
In response to applicant's argument that “optimized for different phases of motion” is obtained: the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues (p. 6-7):
2. Functional synergy and advantage
The selection leads to an optimized outsole:
- The sole portion enhances adherence in routine forward motion via granular texture;
- The heel portion acts as an emergency brake, with spikes that engage only when the heel strikes (e.g., during a slip).
The prior art does not recognize or suggest this division of labor across the outsole. Instead, it either:
- Distributes elements uniformly (granular on all zones), or
- Focuses solely on crampons/spikes, without integrating different friction systems across different zones.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “enhances adherence in routine forward motion via granular texture”; “acts as an emergency brake, with spikes that engage only when the heel strikes”; “division of labor across the outsole”; one or more elements failing to be distributed “uniformly (granular on all zones)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s specific argument that one or more prior arts “Focuses solely on crampons/spikes, without integrating different friction systems across different zones” is fully considered and is further not persuasive in that, 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).
In response to applicant's argument that “synergy and advantage...an optimized outsole” is obtained: the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues (p. 8):
3. No suggestion or motivation to modify
There is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to remove the granular element from the heel while adding a heel-mounted retractable crampon.
In fact, doing so would depart from the teaching in references Osgood, Nicholson, and Lee that suggests granular material on both portions. It would also increase complexity without any apparent benefit-unless the skilled person had the specific insight provided by the present application.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claimed combination reflects a non-obvious selection with synergistic functional benefits. In the absence of any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to arrive at the claimed configuration, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with any rejection as applied. Prior art [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] is relied upon to address the limitation “only one retractable crampon...mounted to the heel portion of the main tread”, and, in the rejections, Parissenti is not modified so as a granular element is removed therefrom as argued. Rather, Parissenti is modified such that it is provided with (emphasis provided by Examiner) at least one granular non-slip element (see p. 6 lines 7-12; the paragraph spanning p. 21-22; the paragraph spanning p. 34-35 of the Office action of 05/29/2025).
In response to applicant's argument that “synergistic functional benefits” are obtained: the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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) 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] in view of [Osgood, US 90,118, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Parissenti discloses (Figs. 1-5):
An outsole 1 and 3 (i.e. the combined “sole 3” and “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15) for a shoe 2 comprising:
a main tread 3 (i.e. the combined “sole 3” and “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15) to be secured to a shoe 2;
the main tread having a sole portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) and a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below);
only one retractable crampon 1 (i.e. “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15), including at least one spike 21 (i.e. “teeth 21”; p. 6 line 25), that is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread (p. 5 line 16; Figs. 1-4);
the retractable crampon being movable between a deployed position (the position in which “the position in which” “member 6” “lies outside the sole 3”; p. 8 lines 19-20; Figs. 1-3), wherein the at least one spike 21 extends from the main tread 3 (as in Figs. 1-3), and a retracted position (“retracted position”; p. 8 lines 14 and 22; Fig. 4), wherein the at least one spike is prevented from contacting the ground by the main tread 3 (as in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Parissenti does not expressly disclose at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion.
However and in further view of Parissenti:
The main tread 3 of Parissenti is a “sole 3...of a mountain shoe 2” (p. 5 lines 15-16). Parissenti further teaches that “moving on particularly rough or frozen terrain, especially in mountainous regions, entails a high risk of falling and slipping accidentally. This aspect is particularly relevant for elderly people, since their reflexes are slow due to their age and accordingly their step is often uncertain and unsteady. In order to at least partially obviate these problems, it is preferably to wear when necessary sturdy shoes, known as boots, which are provided with soles suitable for moving on these kinds of terrain” (p. 1 lines 9-16). Parissenti further teaches the shoe 2 is appropriate for “walking when it is in the retracted position” (p. 4 line 1) wherein when in said retracted position (the position in which “the position in which” “member 6” “lies outside the sole 3”; p. 8 lines 19-20; Fig. 3), the main tread 3 is configured to contact a ground surface (Fig. 4). In addition, the sole portion (identified in above annotated Fig. 1 – a) of main tread 3 is configured to contact a ground surface when outsole is in the deployed position of Figs. 1-3 and when the outsole is in the retracted position of Fig. 4 insofar as the crampon 1 is provided on only the heel portion.
However, although Parissenti teaches main treads (“soles”) wherein said main treads are “suitable for moving on” “rough or frozen terrain” wherein said main treads “at least partially obviate” the “problems” of “risk of falling and slipping accidentally”, Parissenti does not expressly disclose the main tread 3 of Figs. 1-4 comprises at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion. Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill would look to the description of “suitable for moving on” “rough or frozen terrain” wherein said main treads “at least partially obviate” the “problems” of “risk of falling and slipping accidentally” combined with the teaching that the shoe 2 is appropriate for “walking when it is in the retracted position” and at least expect the main tread 3 within the sole portion to be configured to provide a non-slipping capability to the shoe 2.
However, Osgood teaches (Fig. 2) an outsole for boots and shoes for men and women (col. 1 lines 5-6) wherein a bottom plane of the outsole is defined by a plurality of granular non-slip elements (each piece of “compound” (col. 2 lines 2-3) filling each compartment D). In Osgood, said granular non-slip elements are provided in heel and sole portions as evidenced by compartments D being provided in both “the sole and heel” (col. 1 line 16) of Fig. 2 as evidenced in Fig. 2. The non-slip elements are granular insofar as they comprise “coarse or fine” “emery” (col. 1 lines 34-35) and are granular non-slip elements consistent with how the term is used in present paragraph [0010] insofar as the granular emery is integrated into rubber as described in Osgood col. 1 lines 33-34 and col. 2 lines 3-5 so as to yield adherence on an icy ground as described in Osgood col. 1 lines 6-9 and col. 2 lines 13-15.
Osgood further teaches the granular non-slip elements help prevent the soles “from slipping on ice and smooth and wet pavements, and…make them more durable” (col. 1 lines 6-7) and that “a person can walk on ice, smooth and wet pavements, sidewalks, or any other slippery place” (col. 2 lines 13-15).
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 outsole of Parissenti such that it is provided with at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion in order to help prevent the outsole from slipping on ice, smooth and wet pavements, sidewalks, and/or other slippery surfaces and/or to make the outsole more durable, as taught by Osgood (col. 1 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 3:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Parissenti does not expressly teach wherein the at least one granular non-slip element is a plurality of granular non-slip elements.
However and in further view of Osgood:
In Osgood, a plurality of granular non-slip elements (each piece of “compound” (col. 2 lines 2-3) filling each compartment D) are provided in a sole portion; refer to Fig. 2 wherein at least two compartments D are provided in a sole portion of Osgood.
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 modified Parissenti such that its at least one granular non-slip element is a plurality of granular non-slip elements in order to help prevent the outsole from slipping on ice, smooth and wet pavements, sidewalks, and/or other slippery surfaces and/or to make the outsole more durable due to the presence of the additional one or more granular non-slip elements of the plurality of granular non-slip elements.
Regarding claim 6:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion (p. 5 lines 25-26; Figs. 1-4) of the main tread 3 via a bracket 5, 14 (i.e. the combined “body 5” and “plate 14”; p. 5 line 30).
Regarding claim 9:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (“member (6)...hinged” (Abstract) about “pivots 27” (p. 7 line 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the main tread includes a recess (see annotated Figs. 3-4 – a below) for receiving the retractable crampon in its retracted position (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
773
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Parissenti does not expressly teach wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the at least one granular non-slip element being positioned within the central portion.
However and in further view of Osgood:
In Osgood, a main tread further has a central portion (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) that surrounds the central portion; at least one granular non-slip element being positioned within the central portion (as in annotated Fig. 2 – a below wherein granular non-slip element is filling each compartment D, and there are plural compartments D within the central portion identified).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 modified Parissenti such that its main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the at least one granular non-slip element being positioned within the central portion in order to help prevent the outsole from slipping on ice, smooth and wet pavements, sidewalks, and/or other slippery surfaces and/or to make the outsole more durable at the central portion of the main tread.
Regarding claim 15:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the main tread further includes a shank portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – b below) between the sole and heel portions.
PNG
media_image4.png
607
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Parissenti further meets the limitation A shoe (2 of Parissenti) equipped with the outsole of claim 1 (shoe 2 of Parissenti is comprising the outsole 1,3 of Parissenti; outsole of Parissenti is modified so as to meet claim 1 limitations; see above treatment of claim 1. Accordingly, the modified Parissenti meets the limitation A shoe equipped with the outsole of claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Osgood, US 90,118, previously cited] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Seo, US 6,360,455, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a below) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a below) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a below), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a below) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
PNG
media_image5.png
335
804
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
335
732
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 8:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 9, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions; wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above treatment of claim 7) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11:
Parissenti in view of Osgood and Seo teach The outsole of claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Parissenti as applied to claim 10 further meets the limitation wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (refer to above treatment of claim 10 wherein the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Osgood, US 90,118, previously cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Brooks, 1,902,686].
Regarding claim 14:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the main tread is made of a rubber material.
However, Brooks teaches an outsole wherein a main tread is made of a rubber material (“durable rubber of which the tread 1 is made”; p. 1 lines 93-94).
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 modified Parissenti such that its main tread is made of a rubber material in order to make the main tread durable, as suggested by Brooks (p. 1 lines 93-94).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Osgood, US 90,118, previously cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Watanabe, US 2,038,972].
Regarding claim 16:
Parissenti in view of Osgood teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose at least one of the sole and heel portions comprises lugs.
However, Watanabe teaches an outsole 6 wherein sole and heel portions thereof (col. 1 lines 35-36; Fig. 2) comprise lugs 10 (i.e. “lugs 10”; col. 1 line 37). Watanabe further teaches that lugs 10 are “extending...beyond the foot” and “serve to prevent turning of the ankle” (col. 1 lines 11-12); “are...rigid to resist slipping” and are “resilient...to be an effective cushion for the foot of the wearer” (col. 2 lines 18-21).
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 modified Parissenti such that its sole portion and/or its heel portion is provided with lugs in order to prevent ankle turning, resist slipping, and/or to cushion the wearer’s foot, as taught by Watanabe (col. 2 lines 18-21).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] in view of [Nicholson, US 5,038,500, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Parissenti discloses (Figs. 1-5):
An outsole 1 and 3 (i.e. the combined “sole 3” and “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15) for a shoe 2 comprising:
a main tread 3 (i.e. the combined “sole 3” and “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15) to be secured to a shoe 2;
the main tread having a sole portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 1 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) and a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 1 over Parissenti in view of Osgood);
only one retractable crampon 1 (i.e. “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15), including at least one spike 21 (i.e. “teeth 21”; p. 6 line 25), that is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread (p. 5 line 16; Figs. 1-4);
the retractable crampon being movable between a deployed position (the position in which “the position in which” “member 6” “lies outside the sole 3”; p. 8 lines 19-20; Figs. 1-3), wherein the at least one spike 21 extends from the main tread 3 (as in Figs. 1-3), and a retracted position (“retracted position”; p. 8 lines 14 and 22; Fig. 4), wherein the at least one spike is prevented from contacting the ground by the main tread 3 (as in Fig. 4).
Parissenti does not expressly disclose at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion.
However and in further view of Parissenti:
The main tread 3 of Parissenti is a “sole 3...of a mountain shoe 2” (p. 5 lines 15-16). Parissenti further teaches that “moving on particularly rough or frozen terrain, especially in mountainous regions, entails a high risk of falling and slipping accidentally. This aspect is particularly relevant for elderly people, since their reflexes are slow due to their age and accordingly their step is often uncertain and unsteady. In order to at least partially obviate these problems, it is preferably to wear when necessary sturdy shoes, known as boots, which are provided with soles suitable for moving on these kinds of terrain” (p. 1 lines 9-16). Parissenti further teaches the shoe 2 is appropriate for “walking when it is in the retracted position” (p. 4 line 1) wherein when in said retracted position (the position in which “the position in which” “member 6” “lies outside the sole 3”; p. 8 lines 19-20; Fig. 3), the main tread 3 is configured to contact a ground surface (Fig. 4). In addition, the sole portion (identified in above annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 1 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) of main tread 3 is configured to contact a ground surface when outsole is in the deployed position of Figs. 1-3 and when the outsole is in the retracted position of Fig. 4 insofar as the crampon 1 is provided on only the heel portion.
However, although Parissenti teaches main treads (“soles”) wherein said main treads are “suitable for moving on” “rough or frozen terrain” wherein said main treads “at least partially obviate” the “problems” of “risk of falling and slipping accidentally”, Parissenti does not expressly disclose the main tread 3 of Figs. 1-4 comprises at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion. Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill would look to the description of “suitable for moving on” “rough or frozen terrain” wherein said main treads “at least partially obviate” the “problems” of “risk of falling and slipping accidentally” combined with the teaching that the shoe 2 is appropriate for “walking when it is in the retracted position” and at least expect the main tread 3 within the sole portion to be configured to provide a non-slipping capability to the shoe 2.
However, Nicholson teaches (Figs. 1-6) an outsole (Abstract) wherein a bottom plane of the outsole is defined by a plurality of granular (“small grit particles”; col. 3 lines 23-24) non-slip elements (16A, 16B) wherein said granular non-slip elements are provided at both heel 22 and sole 23 portions of the outsole. The non-slip elements are granular non-slip elements consistent with how the term is used in present paragraph [0010] insofar as the granular grit particles are integrated into polymeric matrix as described in Nicholson col. 3 lines 22-23 and are configured to “provide improved gripping characteristics” (col. 3 lines 25-26) and “provide[] superior traction on slippery surfaces...snow and ice-covered sidewalks” (col. 7 lines 47-48).
Nicholson further teaches the granular non-slip elements afford the outsole “superior nonslip properties” (col. 1 line 55); “provide improved traction on slippery surfaces” (col. 1 line 9); “provide improved gripping characteristics” (col. 3 lines 25-26) and “provide[] superior traction on slippery surfaces...snow and ice-covered sidewalks” (col. 7 lines 47-48).
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 outsole of Parissenti such that it is provided with at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion, in order to help provide superior nonslip properties on slippery surfaces and/or snow and ice-covered sidewalks, and/or to improve gripping characteristics, as taught by Nicholson (col. 1 lines 9, 55; col. 3 lines 25-26; col. 7 lines 47-48).
Regarding claim 4:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teaches The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one granular non-slip element is made of a polymer blend material.
However, in further view of Nicholson:
Nicholson as described in col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 20 describes a process of securing the grit granules to the outsole whereby a polymer blend material is employed (i.e. “polar polymeric material” (col. 3 line 68), “polyisoprenes” (col. 4 lines 15-16), and “the surrounding rubber” (col. 4 line 13). Nicholson further teaches the polymer blend material results in a “strong[] chemical bond” (col. 4 line 32) securing the grit granules to the outsole.
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 modified Parissenti such that the at least one granular non-slip element is made of a polymer blend material, as in Nicholson col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 40, in order to afford a strong bond between outsole and granules, as taught by Nicholson (col. 4 line 32).
Regarding claim 6:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion (p. 5 lines 25-26; Figs. 1-4) of the main tread 3 via a bracket 5, 14 (i.e. the combined “body 5” and “plate 14”; p. 5 line 30).
Regarding claim 9:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (“member (6)...hinged” (Abstract) about “pivots 27” (p. 7 line 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the main tread includes a recess (see annotated Figs. 3-4 – a presented in above rejection of claim 12 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) for receiving the retractable crampon in its retracted position (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the main tread further includes a shank portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – b presented in above rejection of claim 15 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) between the sole and heel portions.
Regarding claim 17:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Parissenti further meets the limitation A shoe (2 of Parissenti) equipped with the outsole of claim 1 (shoe 2 of Parissenti is comprising the outsole 1,3 of Parissenti; outsole of Parissenti is modified so as to meet claim 1 limitations; see above treatment of claim 1. Accordingly, the modified Parissenti meets the limitation A shoe equipped with the outsole of claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Nicholson, US 5,038,500, previously cited] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Seo, US 6,360,455, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 8:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti in view of Osgood), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 9, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions; wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson and Seo teach The outsole of claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Parissenti as applied to claim 10 further meets the limitation wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (refer to above treatment of claim 10 wherein the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Nicholson, US 5,038,500, previously cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Brooks, 1,902,686].
Regarding claim 14:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the main tread is made of a rubber material.
However, Brooks teaches an outsole wherein a main tread is made of a rubber material (“durable rubber of which the tread 1 is made”; p. 1 lines 93-94).
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 modified Parissenti such that its main tread is made of a rubber material in order to make the main tread durable, as suggested by Brooks (p. 1 lines 93-94).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Nicholson, US 5,038,500, previously cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Watanabe, US 2,038,972].
Regarding claim 16:
Parissenti in view of Nicholson teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose at least one of the sole and heel portions comprises lugs.
However, Watanabe teaches an outsole 6 wherein sole and heel portions thereof (col. 1 lines 35-36; Fig. 2) comprise lugs 10 (i.e. “lugs 10”; col. 1 line 37). Watanabe further teaches that lugs 10 are “extending...beyond the foot” and “serve to prevent turning of the ankle” (col. 1 lines 11-12); “are...rigid to resist slipping” and are “resilient...to be an effective cushion for the foot of the wearer” (col. 2 lines 18-21).
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 modified Parissenti such that its sole portion and/or its heel portion is provided with lugs in order to prevent ankle turning, resist slipping, and/or to cushion the wearer’s foot, as taught by Watanabe (col. 2 lines 18-21).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] in view of [Lee, US 2013/0203924, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Parissenti discloses (Figs. 1-5):
An outsole 1 and 3 (i.e. the combined “sole 3” and “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15) for a shoe 2 comprising:
a main tread 3 (i.e. the combined “sole 3” and “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15) to be secured to a shoe 2;
the main tread having a sole portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 1 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) and a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 1 over Parissenti in view of Osgood);
only one retractable crampon 1 (i.e. “device...1”; p. 5 lines 14-15), including at least one spike 21 (i.e. “teeth 21”; p. 6 line 25), that is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread (p. 5 line 16; Figs. 1-4);
the retractable crampon being movable between a deployed position (the position in which “the position in which” “member 6” “lies outside the sole 3”; p. 8 lines 19-20; Figs. 1-3), wherein the at least one spike 21 extends from the main tread 3 (as in Figs. 1-3), and a retracted position (“retracted position”; p. 8 lines 14 and 22; Fig. 4), wherein the at least one spike is prevented from contacting the ground by the main tread 3 (as in Fig. 4).
Parissenti does not expressly disclose at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion.
However and in further view of Parissenti:
The main tread 3 of Parissenti is a “sole 3...of a mountain shoe 2” (p. 5 lines 15-16). Parissenti further teaches that “moving on particularly rough or frozen terrain, especially in mountainous regions, entails a high risk of falling and slipping accidentally. This aspect is particularly relevant for elderly people, since their reflexes are slow due to their age and accordingly their step is often uncertain and unsteady. In order to at least partially obviate these problems, it is preferably to wear when necessary sturdy shoes, known as boots, which are provided with soles suitable for moving on these kinds of terrain” (p. 1 lines 9-16). Parissenti further teaches the shoe 2 is appropriate for “walking when it is in the retracted position” (p. 4 line 1) wherein when in said retracted position (the position in which “the position in which” “member 6” “lies outside the sole 3”; p. 8 lines 19-20; Fig. 3), the main tread 3 is configured to contact a ground surface (Fig. 4). In addition, the sole portion (identified in above annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 1 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) of main tread 3 is configured to contact a ground surface when outsole is in the deployed position of Figs. 1-3 and when the outsole is in the retracted position of Fig. 4 insofar as the crampon 1 is provided on only the heel portion.
However, although Parissenti teaches main treads (“soles”) wherein said main treads are “suitable for moving on” “rough or frozen terrain” wherein said main treads “at least partially obviate” the “problems” of “risk of falling and slipping accidentally”, Parissenti does not expressly disclose the main tread 3 of Figs. 1-4 comprises at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion. Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill would look to the description of “suitable for moving on” “rough or frozen terrain” wherein said main treads “at least partially obviate” the “problems” of “risk of falling and slipping accidentally” combined with the teaching that the shoe 2 is appropriate for “walking when it is in the retracted position” and at least expect the main tread 3 within the sole portion to be configured to provide a non-slipping capability to the shoe 2.
However, Lee teaches a slip prevention pad (Title, Abstract) granular non-slip element wherein the granular non-slip element “slip prevention pad...can be used for shoes by combining it with the shoe. As methods of combining the slip prevention pad with a shoe, the slip prevention pad may be combined with a shoe by...pressing...unvulcanized rubber to attach the unvulcanized rubber...to the silp prevention pad, or by directly attaching the slip prevention pad to the sole of a shoe” (para 36). The slip prevention pad of Lee is a granular non-slip element insofar as comprises a granular element (“emery”, which is granular insofar as it has a “particle size” and is “emery of 60~100 meshes”; para 22) is integrated into a rubber material (para 32; steps S300-S400; Fig. 1) during molding (paras 32-33; steps S300-S400; Fig. 1) that reacts with a snowy or icy ground to yield more adherence to said snowy or icy ground than said rubber (emery granules are provided “as a friction material on a slippery road or the like, and the particle size thereof may be suitably selected by those skilled in the art according to the target friction coefficient of the slip prevention pad” (para 22) wherein the “slip prevention pad may effectively prevent slipping on a slippery road surface such as a snowy road or an icy road” (Abstract).
Lee is silent as to whether said granular non-slip element is provided on a heel and/or sole portion of a shoe sole. However, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the granular non-slip element of Lee could be provided on surfaces of a sole that are configured to engage a road surface whether provided on heel and/or forefoot portions. One of ordinary skill would look to the teachings of Lee and recognize that they would be applicable to the sole portion of Parissenti insofar as the sole portion of Parissenti is configured to engage and walk on surfaces disposed thereunder, including road surfaces.
Lee further teaches the granular non-slip element “slip prevention pad” is provided such that “slip prevention pad may effectively prevent slipping on a slippery road surface such as a snowy road or an icy road. In addition, the slip prevention pad may allow a user to walk normally on a non-slippery road without experiencing any inconvenience” (Abstract).
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 outsole of Parissenti such that it is provided with at least one granular non-slip element integrated to the main tread and being positioned within the sole portion in order to effectively prevent slipping on a slippery road surface such as a snowy road or an icy road and/or to allow a user to walk normally on a non-slippery road without experiencing any inconvenience, as suggested by Lee (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4:
Parissenti in view of Lee teaches The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one granular non-slip element is made of a polymer blend material.
However, in further view of Lee:
Lee teaches “the raw rubber may be at least one selected from the group consisting of natural rubber, synthetic rubber, NBR (acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber), EPDM, and fluororubber (Viton rubber) according to the use of a product. For example, in order to obtain a product requiring relatively higher adhesiveness, natural rubber having excellent mechanical properties, high adhesiveness and excellent workability may be selected, and in order to obtain a product having improved oil resistance and heat resistance, NBR, which is a cheap oil-resistant rubber having excellent workability and filling effect, may be selected. Further, in order to obtain a product having improved ozone resistance, weather resistance, heat resistance, aging resistance, chemical resistance and the like, EPDM may be selected. Such EPDM can be usefully used because it exhibits various colors and has excellent color stability. Further, in order to obtain a product having improved heat resistance, cold resistance, oil resistance, chemical resistance and the like, fluororubber may be selected” (para 31). One of ordinary skill would recognize the disclosed group to comprise polymers, and via the disclosure of “at least one” of such polymers, Lee teaches making a granular non-slip element of a polymer blend material.
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 modified Parissenti such that its at least one granular non-slip element is made of a polymer blend material in order to yield a non-slip element who has one or more desirable properties due to a first polymeric component of its polymeric blend and has one or more other desirable properties due to a second polymeric component of its polymeric blend.
Regarding claim 6:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion (p. 5 lines 25-26; Figs. 1-4) of the main tread 3 via a bracket 5, 14 (i.e. the combined “body 5” and “plate 14”; p. 5 line 30).
Regarding claim 9:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (“member (6)...hinged” (Abstract) about “pivots 27” (p. 7 line 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the main tread includes a recess (see annotated Figs. 3-4 – a presented in above rejection of claim 12 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) for receiving the retractable crampon in its retracted position (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti further discloses wherein the main tread further includes a shank portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – b presented in above rejection of claim 15 over Parissenti in view of Osgood) between the sole and heel portions.
Regarding claim 17:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Parissenti further meets the limitation A shoe (2 of Parissenti) equipped with the outsole of claim 1 (shoe 2 of Parissenti is comprising the outsole 1,3 of Parissenti; outsole of Parissenti is modified so as to meet claim 1 limitations; see above treatment of claim 1. Accordingly, the modified Parissenti meets the limitation A shoe equipped with the outsole of claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Lee, US 2013/0203924, newly cited] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Seo, US 6,360,455, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 8:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 6, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti in view of Osgood), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 9, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions; wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket.
However, Seo teaches (Figs. 1-13) a retractable crampon (the combined 16 and 20) mounted to a heel portion of an outsole 10. The retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket (18) wherein the bracket is removably secured (col. 4 line 17) to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners (24; col. 6 line 18) (It is known in the art that the fasteners described in col. 4 line 17 and col. 6 line 18 removably secure elements to each other.) wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo); wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (col. 4 line 37, Abstract) so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions (Abstract) wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) having two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo), and a connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 – a presented in above rejection of claim 7 over Parissenti, Osgood, and Seo) that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket (col. 4 lines 36-37) wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab (48) to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (col. 6 lines 40-42 and 65-67).
Seo further teaches that “the present invention provides footwear with a traction device 14 which is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, that is reliable, that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and that is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions” (col. 7 lines 1-8).
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 modified Parissenti such that it is provided with the retractable crampon is mounted to the heel portion of the main tread via a bracket; wherein the bracket is removably secured to the heel portion of the main tread via fasteners; wherein the main tread further has a central portion that extends along both the sole and heel portions and a peripheral portion that surrounds the central portion; the bracket being positioned on the central portion; wherein the retractable crampon is pivotally secured to the bracket (so as to be movable between the retracted and deployed positions wherein the retractable crampon includes a spiked portion having two side faces and including the at least one spike on one of the two side faces, and a connecting portion that extends from the spiked portion and that pivotally connects the spiked portion to the bracket wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions, as in Seo, in order to provide an outsole whose crampon is movable between active and inactive positions that has sufficient strength for use in heavy duty applications such as pack boots for outdoor sporting activities without frequent failure, is reliable, is relatively inexpensive to produce, and/or is easily and quickly manipulated between the active and inactive positions, as taught by Seo (col. 7 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11:
Parissenti in view of Lee and Seo teach The outsole of claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Parissenti as applied to claim 10 further meets the limitation wherein the spiked portion further includes a tab to help moving the retractable crampon between the retracted and deployed positions (refer to above treatment of claim 10 wherein the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Lee, US 2013/0203924, newly cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Brooks, 1,902,686].
Regarding claim 14:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose wherein the main tread is made of a rubber material.
However, Brooks teaches an outsole wherein a main tread is made of a rubber material (“durable rubber of which the tread 1 is made”; p. 1 lines 93-94).
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 modified Parissenti such that its main tread is made of a rubber material in order to make the main tread durable, as suggested by Brooks (p. 1 lines 93-94).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Parissenti, WO-0025619A1] and [Lee, US 2013/0203924, newly cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Watanabe, US 2,038,972].
Regarding claim 16:
Parissenti in view of Lee teach The outsole of claim 1, as set forth above.
Parissenti does not expressly disclose at least one of the sole and heel portions comprises lugs.
However, Watanabe teaches an outsole 6 wherein sole and heel portions thereof (col. 1 lines 35-36; Fig. 2) comprise lugs 10 (i.e. “lugs 10”; col. 1 line 37). Watanabe further teaches that lugs 10 are “extending...beyond the foot” and “serve to prevent turning of the ankle” (col. 1 lines 11-12); “are...rigid to resist slipping” and are “resilient...to be an effective cushion for the foot of the wearer” (col. 2 lines 18-21).
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 modified Parissenti such that its sole portion and/or its heel portion is provided with lugs in order to prevent ankle turning, resist slipping, and/or to cushion the wearer’s foot, as taught by Watanabe (col. 2 lines 18-21).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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 at 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732