Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrell (20130237378) in view of Munschy (#4,136,468). Carrell substantially shows the claimed subjected matter as set forth in the previous office action (7/17/2025). Carrell does not disclose specifically that the one or more pads including a first coefficient of friction wherein the first coefficient of friction is different than a second coefficient of friction for a sole. Munschy teaches the known concept of having a friction pad that has a higher coefficient of friction than the sole (Velofoam) to assist with stopping the footwear or to limit slipping (col 4 lines 1+). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Carrell with a different (higher) coefficient friction material for its pad to use known materials based on its suitability of intended use. It is the examiner’s position that is known to use friction pads to either have a lower or higher coefficient of friction than its sole to either assist with sliding (lower coefficient of friction) or limiting sliding (higher coefficient of friction). See in re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, 18, the modified Carrell includes at last one high coefficient friction pad with the friction pad of Munschy which is used to assist with stopping or limiting slipping. As discussed in the previous office action, the platform may have a surface made from tempered glass so that the first coefficient of friction is higher than the coefficient of friction for the platform.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 19, see fig 1A of Carrell which shows one of the pads under the toe region.
As discussed in previous office action for claim 8, the examiner is interpreting “cover” to be met as a user will cover at least a portion of a foot while wearing the footwear.
3. Claims 2, 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrell in view of Munschy as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10-20 above, and further in view of Tsuji (6,598324).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Carrell does not show shoelace securing means as claimed. Tsuji teaches the footwear further comprising: at least one shoelace configured to secure the upper portion to the foot of the user. See Fig. 1A, 4 which shows laces of a friction reducing piece of footwear utilized to secure the support portion to the foot of a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Carrell in view of McNamara with Tsuji as the simple substitution of one known securing means with another is obvious. The securing means of the straps are well known in the art as is the securing means of the laces, the utilization of laces in place of straps to secure the footwear to a user's foot would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Regarding claim 9, Tsuji teaches the footwear cover further comprising: at least one shoelace configured to secure the upper portion to the foot of the user. See Fig. 1A, 4 which shows laces of a friction reducing piece of footwear utilized to secure the support portion to the foot of a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Carrell in view of McNamara with Tsuji as the simple substitution of one known securing means with another is obvious. The securing means of the straps are well known in the art as is the securing means of the laces, the utilization of laces in place of straps to secure the footwear to a user's foot would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights