DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 24 March 2026 have been considered. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1, 9, and 21 has/have been amended, claim(s) 20 is/are canceled, and claim(s) 6, 14-15, and 17-19 has/have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-19 and 21 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow regarding claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 16, and 21.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 28 October 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covatch US 20040181970 in view of Giese US 5575089, in view of Rackiewicz US 20090090023, further in view of Litchfield US 5771606.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Covatch discloses a shoe (Figs. 1-6 #10; ¶0036; The Examiner notes that the embodiment of Fig. 5 is the embodiment being used as prior art. However, Fig. 5 does not have the reference characters #10/12/22. Figs. 1-3 shows #10/12/22, but the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 is not the embodiment being used as prior art for the claimed invention. Further, Fig. 6 is also not the embodiment being used, however Fig. 6 clearly references the same layered structures of Fig. 5 in detail and thus will be used for clarification purposes,) comprising: a shoe upper (Figs. 1-6 #12; ¶0029); a midsole (Fig. 5 #38; ¶0037) having at least one cavity (Figs. 3 & 5 #22 cavities in forefoot/heel; ¶0037 notes, “shoe 10 having maximum cushioning in heel area 34 by extending hole 22 through first, middle, and second layers, 16, 18, and 20 to bottom point 32 of recess 30, where bottom point 32 is as low in heel 38 as possible without sacrificing structural integrity. This embodiment takes advantage of the space in heel 38 and uses it to maximize a depth of hole 22 and protrusion 46 in heel area 34”) formed in an upper surface thereof (Fig. 5 show the upper surface of the midsole having a cavity; ¶0014); an insole (Fig. 5 #44) having at least one projecting interlocking feature (Applicant’s “projecting interlocking feature” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Applicant’s “projecting interlocking feature” appears to be a protrusion extending from the bottom surface of the insole [per Applicant Drawings 1-6 #621/622 and Spec ¶0044]; Covatch has a protrusions extending from the bottom surface of the insole, which are the same as the Applicant’s “projecting interlocking feature”; see Fig. 5 #46 forefoot/heel) formed in a lower surface thereof (Figs. 3-4 show the protrusions #46 on the lower surface of the insole #44); the at least one projecting interlocking feature including at least one heel pod (Fig. 5 #46 heel) having an upper surface (Fig. 5 shows the upper surface cross-section) and a lower surface (Fig. 5 #32), and at least one forefoot pod (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot) having an upper surface (Fig. 5 shows the upper surface cross-section) and a lower surface (Fig. 5 shows the lower surface cross-section), the at least one heel pod being thicker than the at least one forefoot pod (Fig. 5); and a first layer (Figs. 1-6 #16; ¶0029, 0033) below the shoe upper (Figs. 1-6), the first layer having at least one cutout (Figs. 3-4 #22 holes in forefoot/heel; ¶0035 notes, “hole 22 passes through first layer 16,”) for accepting the at least one projecting interlocking feature (¶0035 notes, “hole 22 passes through first layer 16…. Protrusion 46 likewise passes through first layer 16,”), the at least one cutout being aligned with the at least one cavity of the midsole (Figs. 3-4; ¶0031, 0033, 0035).
Covatch does not expressly disclose that the upper surface of the at least one heel pod has a curved concavity, and that the first layer is a lasting board comprising textiles or fiber boards, the lasting board being coupled to the shoe upper.
Giese teaches an insole (Figs. 22-26 #82) with a deep heel pod (Fig. 25 #82 cross) that has an upper surface (Figs. 25 #82 upper) with a curved concavity (Fig. 25).
Both Covatch and Giese teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with insoles that have heel pods. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Covatch with the teachings of Giese such that the upper surface of the heel pod has a curved concavity so that the insole would be, “pre-shaped to a contour complementary to the bottom surface of the wearer's foot and having an increased height around the periphery of the heel area and in the arch area to form a raised arch support and to provide an irregular contoured upper stabilizing surface for the wearer's foot,” (Giese Abstract).
The modified shoe of Covatch does not expressly disclose that the layer is a lasting board comprising textiles or fiber boards, the lasting board being coupled to the shoe upper.
Rackiewicz teaches a multilayered shoe (Figs. 1-7 #10) with a lasting board (Fig. 7 #54) that is coupled (¶0041) to a shoe upper (Fig. 7 #12).
Both Covatch (as modified by Giese) and Rackiewicz teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with multilayered soles that include lasting boards. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Covatch (as modified by Giese) with the teachings of Rackiewicz such that the lasting board would be coupled to the shoe upper to hold the shoe upper in place while the sole is attached, preventing undesirable folds in the shoe upper during the lasting process.
The modified shoe of Covatch does not expressly disclose that the layer is a lasting board comprising textiles or fiber boards.
Litchfield teaches a multilayered shoe sole (Figs. 13-14) with a lasting board (Figs. 13-14 #1314) that is made of fibers or textiles (Col. 10:22-26).
Both Covatch (as modified by Giese and Rackiewicz) and Litchfield teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with multilayered soles that include lasting boards. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Covatch (as modified by Giese and Rackiewicz) with the teachings of Litchfield such that the lasting board would be made of fibers or textiles as these materials are well-known and can have “a sufficient hardness to act as a moderator” within the sole (Litchfield Col. 10:50-54). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding Claim 2, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 1, wherein the at least one cavity includes two cavities (the at least one projecting interlocking feature includes two projecting interlocking features (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot/heel), and the at least one cutout includes two cutouts (Figs. 3-4 #22 holes forefoot/heel).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 2, wherein the two projecting interlocking features include a first projecting interlocking feature (Fig. 5 #46 heel) adjacent a heel region (Fig. 5 #34) and a second projecting interlocking feature (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot) adjacent a forefoot region (Fig. 5 #36).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 3, wherein the first projecting interlocking feature and the second projecting interlocking feature include thicknesses (Covatch Annotated Fig. 5) that are greater than thickness of remaining portions of the insole (Covatch Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 3, wherein the first projecting interlocking feature and the second projecting interlocking feature include at least one rectangular-shaped pod (Fig. 5 shows the pods are rectangular shaped).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 1, wherein the at least one cutout and the at least one cavity have a same perimeter (Figs. 3-5; ¶0031).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 1, wherein the at least one cavity is configured to accept and mate with the at least one projecting interlocking feature (Figs. 3-5; ¶0031-0037).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the at least one forefoot pod is flat (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 9-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covatch in view of Giese, in view of Rosendahl US 20070101613, further in view of Litchfield.
Regarding Independent Claim 9, Covatch discloses a shoe (Figs. 1-6 #10; ¶0036; The Examiner notes that the embodiment of Fig. 5 is the embodiment being used as prior art. However, Fig. 5 does not have the reference characters #10/12/22. Figs. 1-3 shows #10/12/22, but the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 is not the embodiment being used as prior art for the claimed invention. Further, Fig. 6 is also not the embodiment being used, however Fig. 6 clearly references the same layered structures of Fig. 5 in detail and thus will be used for clarification purposes,) comprising: a midsole (Fig. 5 #38; ¶0037) having at least one cavity (Figs. 3-4 #22 cavities in forefoot/heel; ¶0037 notes, Figs. 3 & 5 #22 cavities in forefoot/heel; ¶0037 notes, “shoe 10 having maximum cushioning in heel area 34 by extending hole 22 through first, middle, and second layers, 16, 18, and 20 to bottom point 32 of recess 30, where bottom point 32 is as low in heel 38 as possible without sacrificing structural integrity. This embodiment takes advantage of the space in heel 38 and uses it to maximize a depth of hole 22 and protrusion 46 in heel area 34”) formed in an upper surface thereof (Fig. 5 shows the upper surface of the midsole having a cavity; ¶0014); an insole (Fig. 5 #44) having at least one projecting interlocking feature (Applicant’s “projecting interlocking feature” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Applicant’s “projecting interlocking feature” appears to be a protrusion extending from the bottom surface of the insole [per Applicant Drawings 1-6 #621/622 and Spec ¶0044]; Covatch has a protrusions extending from the bottom surface of the insole, which are the same as the Applicant’s “projecting interlocking feature”; see Fig. 5 #46 forefoot/heel) formed in a lower surface thereof (Fig. 5 shows the protrusions #46 on the lower surface of the insole #44), the at least one projecting interlocking feature having a complementary shape (Figs. 3-5) to that of the a least one cavity (Figs. 3-5; ¶0031-0037) and being configured to aligned therewith (¶0035 notes, “hole 22 passes through first layer 16…. Protrusion 46 likewise passes through first layer 16,”), the at least one projecting interlocking feature including at least one heel pod (Fig. 5 #46 heel) having an upper surface (Fig. 5 shows the upper surface cross-section) and a lower surface (Fig. 5 #32), and at least one forefoot pod (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot) having an upper surface (Fig. 5 shows the upper surface cross-section) and a lower surface (Fig. 5 shows the lower surface cross-section), the at least one heel pod being thicker than the at least one forefoot pod (Fig. 5); but does not expressly disclose that the upper surface of the at least one heel pod has a curved concavity, and a lasting board comprising textiles or fiber boards for coupling to a shoe upper, the lasting board being disposed adjacent the midsole, the lasting board having at least one cutout for accepting the at least one projecting interlocking feature, the at least one cutout being aligned with the at least one cavity of the midsole.
Giese teaches an insole (Figs. 22-26 #82) with a deep heel pod (Fig. 25 #82 cross) that has an upper surface (Figs. 25 #82 upper) with a curved concavity (Fig. 25).
Both Covatch and Giese teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with insoles that have heel pods. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Covatch with the teachings of Giese such that the upper surface of the heel pod has a curved concavity so that the insole would be, “pre-shaped to a contour complementary to the bottom surface of the wearer's foot and having an increased height around the periphery of the heel area and in the arch area to form a raised arch support and to provide an irregular contoured upper stabilizing surface for the wearer's foot,” (Giese Abstract).
The modified shoe of Covatch does not expressly disclose that the layer is a lasting board that is coupled to the shoe upper.
Rosendahl teaches a multilayered shoe (Fig. 1) with a lasting board (Fig. 1 #14) that is coupled (¶0038-0040) to a shoe upper (Fig. 1 #10), the lasting board being disposed adjacent the midsole (Fig. 1), the lasting board having at least one cutout (¶0040) for accepting the at least one projecting interlocking feature (¶0040), the at least one cutout being aligned with the at least one cavity of the midsole (Fig. 1; ¶0040).
Both Covatch (as modified by Giese) and Rosendahl teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with multilayered soles that include lasting boards. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Covatch (as modified by Giese) with the teachings of Rosendahl such that the lasting board would be coupled to the shoe upper and accept the interlocking features in at least one cutout to hold the shoe upper in place while the sole is attached, preventing undesirable folds in the shoe upper and midsole during the lasting process.
The modified shoe of Covatch does not expressly disclose that the layer is a lasting board comprising textiles or fiber boards.
Litchfield teaches a multilayered shoe sole (Figs. 13-14) with a lasting board (Figs. 13-14 #1314) that is made of fibers or textiles (Col. 10:22-26).
Both Covatch (as modified by Giese and Rosendahl) and Litchfield teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with multilayered soles that include lasting boards. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Covatch (as modified by Giese and Rosendahl) with the teachings of Litchfield such that the lasting board would be made of fibers or textiles as these materials are well-known and can have “a sufficient hardness to act as a moderator” within the sole (Litchfield Col. 10:50-54). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding Claim 10, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 9, wherein the at least one cavity includes two cavities (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot/heel), and the at least one projecting interlocking feature includes two projecting interlocking features (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot/heel).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 10, wherein the two projecting interlocking features include a first projecting interlocking feature (Fig. 5 #46 heel) adjacent a heel region (Fig. 5 #34) and a second projecting interlocking feature (Fig. 5 #46 forefoot) adjacent a forefoot region (Fig. 5 #36).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 11, wherein the first projecting interlocking feature and the second projecting interlocking feature include thicknesses (Covatch Annotated Fig. 5) that are greater than thickness of remaining portions of the insole (Covatch Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 11, wherein the first projecting interlocking feature and the second projecting interlocking feature include at least one rectangular-shaped pod (Fig. 5 shows the pods are rectangular shaped).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified shoe of Covatch discloses the shoe of claim 9, wherein the at least one cutout and the at least one cavity have a same perimeter (Figs. 3-5; ¶0031).
PNG
media_image1.png
1250
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 March 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, 16, and 21 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues:
Covatch does not teach a lasting board nor a lasting layer nor any structure that could be considered a lasting board or lasting layer. And the amendments to the claims overcomes the prior art of record. (Remarks Page 5-6)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Covatch does not specifically teach a lasting board, Covatch does teach a first layer #22 which has holes. Rackeiwicz (for claim 1) and Rosendahl (for claim 9) both teach lasting boards with holes, the lasting board located in between the layers of a sole, similar to the sole structure of Covatch. It would not be unreasonable to modify the first layer of Covatch to be a lasting board since a lasting board is just a layer that helps the sole retain its shape and the first layer of Covatch is designed to hold the footbed protrusions in place inside of the sole, thus retaining the shape of the protrusions. Further, making a lasting board out of textiles or fibers is well known in the art and would be an obvious modification. See 35 USC 103 rejections above.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claim(s) 1 and 9; however, as discussed in the rejection and in the arguments above, claim(s) 1 and 9 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights