DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 7/14/2026. Currently, claims 1-3, 5, 13-19 and 21-28 are pending in the application. Claims 4, 6-12 and 20 are cancelled by Applicant.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to the specification.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 2. Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 16. Applicant’s amendment to claim 24 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 24. Applicant’s amendment to claim 26 is sufficient to overcome the previous objections to claim 26. Applicant’s amendment to claim 28 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 28.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 25 is not sufficient to overcome all previous objections to claim 25. Claim 25, therefore, remains objected to as detailed below.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 25 is not sufficient to overcome all previous rejections of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Further, Applicant did not provide arguments to these rejections. Claims 25 and 26, therefore, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as detailed below.
Applicant failed to amend claim 17 to overcome the previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Further, Applicant did not provide arguments to this rejection. Claim 17, therefore, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as detailed below.
Applicant failed to amend claim 24 to overcome the previous rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Further, Applicant did not provide arguments to this rejection. Claim 24, therefore, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as detailed below.
Applicant failed to amend claim 25 to overcome the previous rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Further, Applicant did not provide arguments to this rejection. Claims 25 and 26, therefore, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the first and second materials of Goller such that the second material is harder than the first material as taught by Matzel because this element is known to enable the device to “be put on easily, but the elevations are firm and hard enough to achieve the desired massage function,” as Matzel teaches in [0038].
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., the angular relationship between adjacent rows being a parameter affecting device operation or massage performance) 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).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the cited prior art does not teach that the angle is of at least 3° and at most 25°, the reiterates that while this feature it not taught in the prior art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the angle is of at least 3° and at most 25°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the angle that the at least two rows of elevations extend relative to one another could be modified in order to achieve higher comfort for an individual user. Please note that column 3, lines 5-10 of Goller teaches that the angle that the at least two rows of elevations extend relative to one another has an impact on the comfort of the user “in the course of the rolling action of the foot when walking.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach that the protrusions are arranged to engage muscle strands extending through the foot, the examiner reminds Applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case, the rows of lugs 3 of Goller are capable of being positioned and manipulated to exert massage pressure on muscle strands on the sole of the user’s foot
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Office does not identify any teaching or suggestion in the cited reference of multiple rows converging toward one another in the claimed manner, the examiner notes that the Office explicitly identifies this feature in the annotated copy of Figure 1 of Goller provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), “the elevations of the rows” in line 4 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the at least three elevations of the at least two rows---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 recites “the base element comprises a hole spanned by a web.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. Applicant’s original disclosure explicitly teaches that “the hole is spanned by two webs (127, 128)” (see [0097] of the publication of the present application), and not one web as claimed. Claim 26 depends on claim 25 and therefore, includes the same error.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 recites “at least one elevation being more movable than the elevations of the rows.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. While Applicant’s original disclosure certainly teaches a configuration with more movable elevations, Applicant’s original disclosure explicitly requires this configuration to have specifically two pairs of elevations (and not at least two elevations, as claimed) forming a spoke cross design, as detailed in [0029] of the publication of the present application. Claim 26 depends on claim 25 and therefore, includes the same error.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites “at least two elevations” in lines 3-4 of the claim. It is unclear if these recited “elevations” are included in, or distinct from, the “at least three elevations” previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 17 depends).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 24, the term "ray-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 25 recites “the at least two elevations” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear if these recited elevation(s) are included in, or distinct from, the “at least three elevations” previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 25 depends). Claim 26 depends on claim 25 and therefore, includes the same error.
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) 1-3, 5, 13-19, 21-24, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goller (US 4,674,203 A) in view of Matzel (US 2016/0120243 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Goller teaches in Figures 1 and 2, claim 1 and the abstract
a pad base body (covering 2) of a first material (the abstract teaches “a covering 2 of soft leather”); and
a pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) of a second material (column 3, lines 27-28 teaches “the elastic material, of which the substructure 1 and the lugs 3 consist”), the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) at least partially embedded in (as shown in Figure 2; claim 1 teaches “the covering (2) is undulated having a waveform with crests over the lugs and depressions between the lugs;” thus, the lugs 3 are embedded between the depressions of the covering 2) the pad base body (covering 2) and comprising:
a base element (substructure 1), and
at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below; the abstract teaches “a plurality of lugs arranged in rows;” also shown in Figure 1) protruding from (as shown in Figure 2; column 2, lines 64-66 teaches “a substructure 1, on whose upper side a plurality of lugs 3 are molded on in uniform rows”) the base element (substructure 1), the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) having at least three elevations (lugs 3) each (Figure 1 teaches each row of lugs 3 including more than three lugs 3 therein) and a non-parallel portion (the two rows of lugs 3 are not parallel to one another) in which the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) do not extend parallel to one another (as shown in Figure 1),
wherein, in the non-parallel portion (the two rows of lugs 3 are not parallel to one another), the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) extend at an angle to one another (Figure 1 and column 3, lines 5-8 teach the two rows of lugs 3 extending at an angle of 60° relative to one another).
Goller does not teach that the second material is harder than the first material; and that the angle is of at least 3° and at most 25°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the angle is of at least 3° and at most 25°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the angle that the at least two rows of elevations extend relative to one another could be modified in order to achieve higher comfort for an individual user. Please note that column 3, lines 5-10 of Goller teaches that the angle that the at least two rows of elevations extend relative to one another has an impact on the comfort of the user “in the course of the rolling action of the foot when walking.”
PNG
media_image1.png
622
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goller does not teach that the second material is harder than the first material.
However, Matzel teaches in [0038] an analogous device wherein the second material (material forming elevations 31) is harder than ([0038] teaches “it may be advantageous to make the contact sleeve 30 out of a very soft and elastic material, while the elevations 31 are formed out of comparably harder material”) the first material (material forming contact sleeve 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the first and second materials of Goller such that the second material is harder than the first material as taught by Matzel because this element is known to enable the device to “be put on easily, but the elevations are firm and hard enough to achieve the desired massage function,” as Matzel teaches in [0038].
In regards to claim 2, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the at least two rows of elevations comprises three to six rows of elevations (rows of lugs 3) having at least three elevations (lugs 3) each (as shown in Figure 1).
In regards to claim 3, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the at least three elevations (lugs 3) comprise (as shown in Figure 1) four to twelve elevations (lugs 3).
In regards to claim 5, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in the abstract that when the pad base body (covering 2) is configured to be applied to a user such that the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) are located in a region of muscle strands, the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) are configured to exert pressure on the muscle strands (the abstract teaches “a plurality of lugs arranged in rows for massaging the soles of the feet;” thus, the rows of lugs 3 are capable of being positioned and manipulated to exert massage pressure on muscle strands on the sole of the user’s foot).
In regards to claim 13, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) comprises at least two additional rows of elevations (two additional rows of lugs 3; as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) having at least three elevations (lugs 3) each (Figure 1 teaches each additional row of lugs 3 including at least three lugs 3 therein), the at least two additional rows of elevations (two additional rows of lugs 3; as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) extending so as to be offset in an angular range of from 75° to 105° and/or so as to be offset in an angular range of from 165° to 205° with respect to the at least two rows of elevations (Figure 1 teaches the two additional rows of lugs being offset 180° relative to a respective one of the at least two rows of elevations; see the annotated copies of Figure 1 provided above and below).
PNG
media_image2.png
622
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) comprises at least two additional rows of elevations (two additional rows of lugs 3; as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided in the rejection of claim 13 above) having at least three elevations (lugs 3) each (Figure 1 teaches each additional row of lugs 3 including at least three lugs 3 therein), the at least two additional rows of elevations (two additional rows of lugs 3; as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided in the rejection of claim 13 above) extending so as to be offset by approximately 180° with respect to (Figure 1 teaches the two additional rows of lugs being offset 180° relative to a respective one of the at least two rows of elevations; see the annotated copies of Figure 1 provided above and below) the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided in the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 15, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) comprises at least four additional rows of elevations (four additional rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) having at least three elevations (Figure 1 teaches each additional row of lugs 3 including at least three lugs 3 therein), the at least four additional rows of elevations (four additional rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) extending so as to be offset in an angular range of from 75° to 105° and/or so as to be offset in an angular range of from 165° to 205° with respect to the at least two rows of elevations (Figure 1 teaches two of the additional rows of lugs being offset 180° relative to a respective one of the at least two rows of elevations; see the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided in the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
622
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Goller does not explicitly teach that the remaining at least two additional rows of elevations are offset in an angular range of from 75° to 105° and/or so as to be offset in an angular range of from 165° to 205° with respect to the at least two rows of elevations. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the remaining at least two additional rows of elevations are offset in an angular range of from 75° to 105° and/or so as to be offset in an angular range of from 165° to 205° with respect to the at least two rows of elevations, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the angle that the remaining at least two additional rows of elevations are offset could be modified in order to achieve higher comfort for an individual user. Please note that column 3, lines 5-10 of Goller teaches that the angle that the rows of elevations extend relative to one another has an impact on the comfort of the user “in the course of the rolling action of the foot when walking.”
In regards to claim 16, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the at least two rows of elevation comprises at least eight rows of elevations (rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) having at least three elevations (lugs 3) each (Figure 1 teaches each row of lugs 3 including at least three lugs 3 therein), the at least eight rows of elevations (rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) converging in the manner of rays (as shown in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below, the rows converge on a circular surface, similar to the way the rays of sunlight converge on the sun) with the at least eight rows of elevations (rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below) converging relative to one another (inasmuch as the rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided below are shown to move toward a common central point).
PNG
media_image3.png
622
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 17, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 16. Goller teaches a hole (column 1, lines 9-10 teaches the “substructure formed from compact or cellular structure-shaped elastic material;” thus, it is understood that the substructure 1 has an open-cell structure with holes throughout, including at the center of the at least eight rows of lugs) located in the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) in a center of the at least eight rows of elevations (rows of lugs 3 indicated with arrows on the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided in the rejection of claim 16 above), at least two elevations (lugs 3) being positioned on the base element (substructure 1) at an edge of the hole (Figure 1 teaches lugs 3 being positioned at the center of the at least eight rows of lugs; since the open-cell structure of the substructure 1 has holes throughout and including at the center of the at least eight rows of lugs 3, the lugs 3 positioned at the center of the at least eight rows of lugs are positioned adjacent said open-cell holes).
In regards to claim 18, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 2 that the base element (substructure 1) of the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) is web-shaped or plate-shaped (as shown in Figure 2, the substructure 1 has a planar structure similar to that of a web or plate).
In regards to claim 19, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 and 2 that the at least three elevations (lugs 3) are stud-shaped or knob-shaped (as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 21, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1, column 1, lines 15-16 and column 3, lines 25-28 that the pad (“insertable innersole,” taught in column 1, lines 15-16; column 3, lines 25-28 teaches that the insertable innersole provides a “cushioning effect” in use and thus, can be considered a “pad”) is an elbow pad, a shoulder pad, a knee pad, an ankle pad, a back pad, a pad for an arm region, or a pad for an abdominal region (the insertable innersole is capable of being positioned in contact with an elbow, shoulder, knee, ankle, back, arm or abdominal region).
In regards to claim 22, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1, column 1, lines 15-16 and column 3, lines 1-2 and 25-28 that the pad (“insertable innersole,” taught in column 1, lines 15-16; column 3, lines 25-28 teaches that the insertable innersole provides a “cushioning effect” in use and thus, can be considered a “pad”) is an elbow pad (the insertable innersole is capable of being positioned in contact with an elbow), the pad base body (covering 2) comprising (column 3, lines 1-2 teaches “the covering 2 is equipped in the heel and ball area with a plurality of perforations 4 of small diameter”) a hole (plurality of perforations 4) for positioning (perforations 4 are capable of being grasped by a user’s fingers to assist in moving/positioned the insertable innersole) the pad (“insertable innersole,” taught in column 1, lines 15-16; column 3, lines 25-28 teaches that the insertable innersole provides a “cushioning effect” in use and thus, can be considered a “pad”).
In regards to claim 23, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in the abstract, column 1, lines 15-16 and 60 and column 3, lines 25-28 an orthosis, bandage, or compression garment (column 1, line 60 teaches that the device “can be used in the shoe;” the shoe being a garment; the abstract teaches “a plurality of lugs arranged in rows for massaging the soles of the feet;” thus, the rows of lugs 3 are capable of exerting massage compression) comprising a pad (“insertable innersole,” taught in column 1, lines 15-16; column 3, lines 25-28 teaches that the insertable innersole provides a “cushioning effect” in use and thus, can be considered a “pad”) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 24, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 1 that the at least two rows of elevations (two rows of lugs 3; see rows of lugs 3 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided above) extend in a ray-like manner in a non-parallel relationship (as shown in the annotated copy of Figure 1 provided above).
In regards to claim 27, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figures 1 and 2 that the pad pressure element (substructure 1 and lugs 3) is embedded in (inasmuch as Figure 2 teaches the substructure 1 and lugs 3 being fixed underneath the covering 2) a tongue-shaped portion of (inasmuch as the entire covering 2 is shown in Figure 1 to be tongue-shaped) the pad base body (covering 2).
In regards to claim 28, Goller and Matzel teach the apparatus of claim 1. Goller teaches in Figure 2 that the at least three elevations (lugs 3) protrude toward a front face (top surface) of the pad (“insertable innersole,” taught in column 1, lines 15-16; column 3, lines 25-28 teaches that the insertable innersole provides a “cushioning effect” in use and thus, can be considered a “pad”) that is adapted to face the wearer's body (Figure 2 teaches the lugs 3 protruding upward away from substructure 1 and toward the top surface of the pad; the top surface of the pad is capable of facing the wearer’s body in use).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights