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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response and amended claims 1 on 07/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are primarily drawn to the 101 rejection and Nayak in view of Chang. Applicant’s arguments were fully considered and were found unpersuasive.
Regarding Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “generating, at the computing platform, a footbed model of the foot based at least in part on applying, to the foot model, a section line alone an outer perimeter of the foot model” and “applying, at the computing platform, one or more transforms to the footbed model…”. These limitation, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at the computing platform,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, a user may generate the foot model and adjust the model through scaling or expanding by visualizing, in the mind or using pen and paper.
In regards to limitation “scanning, using a 3-dimensional scanner, a foot of a subject to obtain a foot model on a computing platform” is a collecting step is amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Step 2A, a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)).
The benefits of comfortable fit and orthotic alignment obtained from the step of “applying, at the computing platform, one or more transforms to the footbed model, wherein applying the one or more transforms comprises expanding the footbed model along a plurality of bisection lines comprising a first bisection line that intersects with a first point on a lateral edge of the footbed model and a second point on a front edge of the footbed model and a second bisection line that intersects with a third point on a medial edge of the footbed model and a fourth point on the lateral edge of the footbed model, and wherein the expanding the footbed model varies an expansion of the foot bed model along a subset of the plurality of bisection lines” as argued, appears to be present in the judicial exception alone. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to integrate the exception into practical application.
Under Step 2B, the limitations related to applying one or more transforms do not appear to show “significantly more” than an abstract idea, as the argued features are features of the abstract idea, not the additional elements.
Regarding Nayak, Applicant argues Nayak does not discuss combinations of transforms that provide comfort in the footbed while maintaining orthotic alignment of key footbed features with structural elements of the foot, nor the specific transforms applied to specific bisection lines that achieve these goals. Examiner concurs Nayak teaches expansion for improving comfort in the footbed, but does not necessarily require maintaining alignment of key footbed features that are of concern in the claimed invention. However, claim 1 as written, in particularly the limitation “wherein the expanding the footbed model varies an expansion of the foot bed model along a subset of the plurality of bisection lines”, does not require orthotic alignment or transformations applied to the specific bisection lines. Expansion of the footbed model for comfort, such as scaling, reads on the claim as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/ do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are drawn to a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“generating, at the computing platform, a footbed model of the foot based at least in part on applying, to the foot model, a section line alone an outer perimeter of the foot model, wherein at least portions of the section line are defined by an angle between a tangent line to the foot model and a horizontal line” and
“applying, at the computing platform, one or more transforms to the footbed model, wherein applying the one or more transforms comprises expanding the footbed model along a plurality of bisection lines comprising a first bisection line that intersects with a first point on a lateral edge of the footbed model and a second point on a front edge of the footbed model and a second bisection line that intersects with a third point on a medial edge of the footbed model and a fourth point on the lateral edge of the footbed model, and wherein the expanding the footbed model varies an expansion of the footbed model along a subset of the plurality of bisection lines.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, as there are no claim limitations that preclude the claimed step of generating a footbed model and applying transforms from being performed in the mind. For instance, a user may generate the model and adjust the model by visualizing, in the mind or using pen and paper.
The recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a computing platform) in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
“Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements, including:
(1) “scanning, using a 3-dimensional scanner, a foot of a subject to obtain a foot model on a computing platform”;
(2) “extruding, at the computing platform subsequent to applying the one or more transforms, the footbed model in at least one dimension to obtain a midsole model”; and
(3) “ manufacturing a sandal midsole out of material according to the midsole model”.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As to (1), the additional element merely requires a data gathering step, and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements (2) and (3) merely recite steps of applying the abstract idea for use with a generic extruder. Therefore, additional elements (2) and (3) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (2)-(3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements (1)-(3) are well-understood, routine, conventional. Nayak teaches elements (1)-(3), as presented below. The claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically, claims 3-4, 6-8, and 10 are drawn to the transformation step and, therefore, are related to the abstract idea and do not present any additional elements.
Claims 11-12 present an abstract idea related to generating a sandal perimeter model and additional elements requiring trimming the midsole model. As previously discussed related to generating a footbed model, generating a sandal perimeter model is an abstract step because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as a user can generate a sandal perimeter model in the mind or through pen and paper. The additional element of trimming the midsole model is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity and would not integrate the abstract into a practical application. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as presented in the rejection below over Nayak in view of Chang and Ellis.
Claims 13-20 present additional elements related to forming channels in the sandal midsole and attaching straps to the sandal midsole by forming channels (as related to claims 14-16); forming the sandal midsole by applying an infill pattern and performing an additive manufacturing process (as related to claim 17-18); forming the sandal with different materials (as related to claim 19); and trimming the midsole model. These steps are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and does not provide meaningful limitations to the process of generating the footbed model. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as presented in the rejection below.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-20 do not present other meaningful limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and that would amount to significantly more than applying the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (WO 2021/221672) in view of Chang (PG-PUB 2019/0070845).
Regarding claim 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10, Nayak teaches a process comprising (Figure 1):
scanning a foot of a subject to obtain a foot model [0040];
generating a footbed model of the foot based at least in part on the foot model;
applying one or more transforms to the footbed model, wherein applying the one or more transforms, wherein the transformation takes user-specific measurement data, which does not necessarily correspond to the geometry and material of the device, and
transforms the user-specific measurement data so that it may be readily applied
to a parametric model of the device to obtain a personalized model [0010], [0019], [0026]-[0031],
wherein an amount of expansion can vary along at least one of the plurality of bisection lines [0051], [0082]-[0087];
additive manufacturing the footbed model in at least one dimension to obtain a midsole model [0011], [0014], [0033], [0080]; and
manufacturing a midsole out of a material according to the midsole model [0080], capable of use as a sandal or other orthopedic footwear [0042].
During the process of additive manufacturing the midsole, two-dimensional midsole model is obtained from the first layer formed according to a footbed CAD model and each layer of the midsole is iteratively formed according to the footbed CAD model and midsole model.
Nayak teaches different transformations may be selected specific to different conditions of users [0070] for the purpose of providing a customized model for various foot shapes and conditions [0078]. Nayak teaches user feedback may be used for transformations such that the customized insole provide a more suitable fit [0089]-[0082]. For instance, Nayak teaches if qualitative evaluation of a customized insole may indicate discomfort in a toe or heel region of the user’s foot, a key indicator may be extract from this information as a value indicative of type of discomfort, location of discomfort, and degree of discomfort such that an adjustment is made to the transformation based on the feedback of the key indicators [0082]-[0087]. Nayak teaches the adjustment made to the original transformation based on the feedback may be added to the transformation matrix to arrive at an updated transformation for subsequent customization [0087].
Nayak does not explicitly teach a section line along an outer perimeter of the foot model, wherein at least portions of the section line are defined by an angle between a tangent line to the foot and a horizontal plane.
However, the claimed section line appears to be a generic section of a foot (based on disclosure and Figure 1), which would be present in any normal foot model. Therefore, it would appear that a foot model of Nayak would have the claimed section line.
Nayak does not explicitly teach expanding the footbed model along a plurality of bisection lines comprising a first bisection line that intersects with a first point on a lateral edge of the footbed model and a second point on a front edge of the footbed model and a second bisection line that intersects with a third point on a medial edge of the footbed model and a fourth point on the lateral edge of the footbed model, wherein the expansion of the footbed model along a subset of the plurality of bisection lines are variable.
Given that Nayak teaches adding an adjustment to the transformation after a first iteration of midsole manufacturing and user feedback to provide improved comfort in problem areas, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adjusted transformation would further adjust the foot model to resolve discomfort in the problem areas, thereby providing variable expansion of the problem areas for improved comfort.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the suggested adjustment of the transformation to the updated transformation for resolving discomfort as an obvious engineering design. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize discomfort at a user’s toe or heel region would be resolve by expanding the problem region for improved comfort. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the suggestion of Nayak to improve the comfort of the user through expansion of problem areas.
An expansion of the toe or heel region would provide expansion of the footbed model along a first bisection line that intersects with a first point on a lateral edge of the footbed model and a second point on a front edge of the footbed model and a second bisection line that intersects with a third point on a medial edge of the footbed model and a fourth point on the lateral edge of the footbed model.
Nayak does not teach extruding the footbed model in a vertical dimension to obtain a midsole model.
Chang teaches a process of additive manufacturing a shoe sole using extrusion-based manufacturing ([0092]-[0093]).
Both Nayak and Chang are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the powder-based additive manufacturing process of Nayak with extrusion-based additive manufacturing of Chang, to yield the predictable result of additive manufacturing a shoe sole.
While Nayak does not explicitly teach manufacturing a sandal, given that the claimed sandal midsole is identical to the midsole manufactured by Nayak in view of Chang, the midsole of Nayak in view of Chang would also be capable of use as a sandal midsole.
Nayak in view of Chang does not explicitly teach applying the one or more transforms comprises expanding the footbed model along a plurality of bisection lines, the plurality bisection lines comprising the first bisection line and a second bisection line that intersects with a third point on a medial edge of the footbed model and a fourth point on the lateral edge of the footbed model.
In regards to claim 3, Nayak in view of Chang does not explicitly teach the plurality of bisection lines comprises a third bisection line that intersects with a fifth point on the medial side of the footbed model and the second point.
In regards to claim 4, Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the fifth point corresponds to an apex of an arch of the foot.
In regards to claim 6, Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the second bisection line bisects the footbed model along a line defined at least in part by the metatarsophalangeal joints of the foot.
In regards to claim 7, Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the plurality of bisection lines comprises a fourth bisection line that bisects the footbed model along a frontal plane to a location associated with a weight bearing portion of a calcaneus of the foot.
In regards to claim 8, Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the plurality of bisection lines comprises a fifth bisection line that bisects the footbed model along a central longitudinal plane.
In regard to claim 10, Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the first point corresponds to the base of the fifth metatarsal of the foot and the second point corresponds to an interspace between a first toe and second toe of the foot, the first toe being a biggest toe and the second toe being adjacent to the first toe.
However, Nayak teaches user feedback may be used for transformations such that the customized insole provide a more suitable fit [0089]-[0082]. For instance, Nayak teaches if qualitative evaluation of a customized insole may indicate discomfort in a toe or heel region of the user’s foot, a key indicator may be extract from this information as a value indicative of type of discomfort, location of discomfort, and degree of discomfort such that an adjustment is made to the transformation based on the feedback of the key indicators [0082]-[0087]. Nayak teaches the adjustment made to the original transformation based on the feedback may be added to the transformation matrix to arrive at an updated transformation for subsequent customization [0087].
Accordingly, in response to user feedback indicating discomfort, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve comfort by resolving the areas of discomfort through an adjustment transformation added to the initial transformation, as suggested by Nayak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adjustment would provide release of the discomfort, and a suitable adjustment would be expanding the regions of the problem areas for improved comfort. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a larger size footbed model by expanding the footbed model, thereby providing an expansion along a plurality of bisection lines.
Furthermore, as suggested by Nayak, the discomfort location can be in various locations, thereby requiring expansion in various locations. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide expansion along the problem areas for any combination of regions corresponding to the shoes, including the toe box region, heel region, width of the foot, arch of the foot, midfoot region, hindfoot region, etc., to provide users with a comfortable fit.
For example, a widening of the midfoot region of a footbed model would cause an expansion along a plurality of bisection lines, including the first bisection line, second bisection line, and fifth bisection line. A widening of the toe region of a footbed model would cause an expansion along a plurality of bisection lines, including the third bisection line and fifth bisection line. A widening of the heel region of a footbed model would cause an expansion along a plurality of bisection lines, including the fourth bisection line and fifth bisection line.
Regarding claim 17, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein manufacturing the sandal midsole comprises forming the sandal midsole based at least in part on an additive manufacturing process (Nayak, [0011], [0033], [0080]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (WO 2021/221672) in view of Chang (PG-PUB 2019/0070845), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ellis (WO 02/09547).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Nayak in view of Chang does not teach trimming the midsole model according to a sandal perimeter model after extruding the midsole model and generating the sandal perimeter model based at least in part on a planar perimeter.
Ellis teaches a midsole orthotic may be affixed to a bottom sole using adhesives (Page 30, ln 5- 27 and Page 37, LN 5-12).
Both Nayak and Ellis are drawn to shoe manufacturing. Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the particular technique for assembling the sandal midsole for use in an orthopedic footwear, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known suitable technique of Ellis for assembling a shoe with a midsole orthotic by applying an adhesive to couple the insole and outer soles to the midsoles of Nayak, for the purpose of manufacturing an orthopedic shoe.
Given that the midsole model is coupled to the outer sole for the purpose of manufacturing the shoes as suggested by Nayak in view of Chang and Ellis, one would have been motivated to ensure that the shape of the midsole matches the outsoles by performing conventional finishing operations, such as trimming.
Regarding claim 13, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the sandal midsole is intended for use in an orthopedic footwear (Nayak, [0014], [0019]).
Nayak in view of Chang does not teach adhering a sole to an underside of the sandal midsole and adhering a cushioning layer to a top side of the sandal midsole.
Ellis teaches a midsole orthotic may be affixed to a bottom sole and insole using adhesives (Page 30, ln 5- 27 and Page 37, LN 5-12).
Both Nayak and Ellis are drawn to shoe manufacturing. Nayak in view of Chang does not teach the particular technique for assembling the sandal midsole for use in an orthopedic footwear, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known suitable technique of Ellis for assembling a shoe with a midsole orthotic by applying an adhesive to couple the insole and outer soles to the midsoles of Nayak, for the purpose of manufacturing an orthopedic shoe.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (WO 2021/221672) in view of Chang (PG-PUB 2019/0070845), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Salmon (PG-PUB 2020/0046063).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Nayak in view of Chang does not teach attaching one or more straps to the sandal midsole and subtracting one or more channels from the midsole model prior to manufacturing the sandal midsole, wherein attaching the one or more straps comprises inserting the one or more straps in the one or more channels of the sandal midsole.
Salmon teaches a process of manufacturing a sandal comprising customizing holes in the midsole for insertion of sandal straps (Figures 1-4, 8, and [0027]- [0028], [0040]-[0041]).
Both Nayak and Salmon are drawn to the manufacturing custom shoes. Nayak teaches manufacturing customized shoes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the type of customized shoes of Nayak in view of Chang with customized sandals as taught by Salmon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the technique of Salmon to form holes in the midsoles for insertion of the sandal straps.
Regarding claim 16, Nayak in view of Chang and Salmon teaches the process as applied to claim 15, further comprising aligning the one or more channels on the midsole model to one or more anatomical location points of the foot model, such as between the toes and on the edge (Salmon, Figures 1-4, 8, and [0027]- [0028], [0040]-[0041]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (WO 2021/221672) in view of Chang (PG-PUB 2019/0070845), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Spanks (US 10,143,266).
Regarding claim 18, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein manufacturing the sandal midsole comprises forming the sandal midsole based at least in part on an additive manufacturing process (Nayak, [0011], [0033], [0080]).
Nayak in view of Chang does not explicitly disclose applying an infill pattern to the midsole model prior to forming the sandal midsole.
Spanks teaches a process of manufacturing a sole structure from a user’s foot morphology (Figures 4-6 and Abstract). Spanks teaches using a lattice pattern (Col 8, Ln 1-47) in the additively manufactured midsole (Col 7, Ln 7-55). Spanks teaches a lattice structure where support structures may be disposed within the voids (Col 9, Ln 55-Col 10, Ln 9 and Col 12, Ln 66-Col 13, ln 22). Spanks teaches the inclusion of support components for the benefit of extra cushioning and support at different portions of the foot (Col 15, Ln 1-18). Spanks teaches using softer or more flexible material at in certain regions of the custom sole to absorb loads put on the foot and provide protection, increase stabilization, and reduce uncomfortable or sore spots (Col 15, Ln 60- Col 16, Ln 10), thereby using different materials for the lattice support and the support components (Col 13, Ln 51- Col 14, Ln 32).
Both Nayak and Spanks are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing customized soles. Both Nayak and Spanks are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing customized soles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the midsoles of Nayak with a lattice structure and support structures for the benefit customizing the midsoles to provide rigid support or additional cushioning where needed, thereby increasing stabilization and providing protection. Because the lattice structure is formed during extruding the midsole model, the infill pattern would be formed before forming the sandal midsole.
Regarding claim 19, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Nayak in view of Chang does not teach manufacturing the sandal midsole comprises forming a first portion of the midsole model using a first material and a second portion of the midsole model using a second material.
Spanks teaches a process of manufacturing a sole structure from a user’s foot morphology (Figures 4-6 and Abstract). Spanks teaches using a lattice pattern (Col 8, Ln 1-47) in the additively manufactured midsole (Col 7, Ln 7-55). Spanks teaches a lattice structure where support structures may be disposed within the voids (Col 9, Ln 55-Col 10, Ln 9 and Col 12, Ln 66-Col 13, ln 22). Spanks teaches the inclusion of support components for the benefit of extra cushioning and support at different portions of the foot (Col 15, Ln 1-18). Spanks teaches using softer or more flexible material at in certain regions of the custom sole to absorb loads put on the foot and provide protection, increase stabilization, and reduce uncomfortable or sore spots (Col 15, Ln 60- Col 16, Ln 10), thereby using different materials for the lattice support and the support components (Col 13, Ln 51- Col 14, Ln 32).
Both Nayak and Spanks are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing customized soles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the midsoles of Nayak with a lattice structure and support structures of softer material for the benefit customizing the midsoles to provide rigid support or additional cushioning where needed as taught by Spanks, thereby increasing stabilization and providing protection.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (WO 2021/221672) in view of Chang (PG-PUB 2019/0070845), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Guer (PG-PUB 2022/0031012).
Regarding claim 20, Nayak in view of Chang teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Nayak in view of Chang does not teach trimming the midsole model according to at least one of a rocker profile or an arch profile prior to manufacturing the sandal midsole.
Guer teaches a process of manufacturing midsoles, wherein an anterior part of the midsole has grooves or cut-outs in a flexing zone corresponding to the flexing fold of the foot in order to favor the folding of the anterior part [0104]-[0105]. Guer teaches the anterior part has a slightly curved surface profile of which the front portion is slightly raised in relation to its rear portion, in such a way as to have maximum support on the ground during digitigrade phase, i.e. during the period, during walking or running, during which the support of the foot is conditioned on the forefoot [0099]. Guer teaches these transversal grooves creates a primer that makes it possible to facilitate the folding of the shoe during the lateral unfolding of the anterior arch during walking and taking support [0109]-[0112]. Guer teaches these grooves can improve general balance with a functional activity that is safe and more economical [0112].
Both Nayak and Guer are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing midsoles. It would have been obvious to use the known technique of providing cut-outs or grooves in an anterior part of the midsoles of Nayak as taught by Guer for the benefit of optimizing folding of the shoe during movement. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to trim grooves in the midsole model according to an arch profile prior to manufacturing the sandal midsole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights