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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are presented.
Claims 4-10 and 13 remain withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1-3 and 12 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s REMARKS of 06/01/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments are fully 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3 and 12 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 1 line 1 recites “A sole that forms part of a shoe, the sole comprising:” such that it is not clear whether the shoe is a structurally claimed element or not. In other words, it is not understood whether what is claimed is: A sole configured to form a part of a shoe (i.e. the shoe is functionally claimed); A shoe comprising a sole; or some other meaning. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation “A sole that forms part of a shoe, the sole comprising:” is interpreted as if it reads instead --A sole configured to form part of a shoe, the sole comprising--
Claim 1 is further indefinite insofar as the phrase “the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction” continues to recite the “shoe”, which, as stated above, it is not understood whether the shoe is a claimed structural element or not. Moreover, the phrase “a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed” renders the claim further indefinite insofar as it is not clear whether the “plane on which the shoe is placed” is a structurally claimed feature or not. Looking to the specification, the specification states “a wearer who wears a shoe 1 placed on a flat plane P (see Fig. 1) such as the ground” such that claim 1 appears to be claiming a plane upon which the sole is placed. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction” reads instead --the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part configured to be located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction”.
Claim 1 is further indefinite in its final line in reciting “toward the rear” insofar as “the rear” lacks antecedent basis such that it is not clear what “the rear” refers to. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “toward the rear” is interpreted as if it reads --toward the heel side end of the upper midsole--
Claims 3 and 12 are indefinite if only because they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim 2 line 1 recites “A sole that forms part of a shoe, the sole comprising:” such that it is not clear whether the shoe is a structurally claimed element or not. In other words, it is not understood whether what is claimed is: A sole configured to form a part of a shoe (i.e. the shoe is functionally claimed); A shoe comprising a sole; or some other meaning. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation “A sole that forms part of a shoe, the sole comprising:” is interpreted as if it reads instead --A sole configured to form part of a shoe, the sole comprising--
Claim 2 is further indefinite insofar as the phrase “the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction” continues to recite the “shoe”, which, as stated above, it is not understood whether the shoe is a claimed structural element or not. Moreover, the phrase “a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed” renders the claim further indefinite insofar as it is not clear whether the “plane on which the shoe is placed” is a structurally claimed feature or not. Looking to the specification, the specification states “a wearer who wears a shoe 1 placed on a flat plane P (see Fig. 1) such as the ground” such that claim 2 appears to be claiming a plane upon which the sole is placed. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction” reads instead --the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part configured to be located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction”.
Claim 2 is further indefinite in its final line in reciting “toward the rear” insofar as “the rear” lacks antecedent basis such that it is not clear what “the rear” refers to. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “toward the rear” is interpreted as if it reads --toward the heel side end of the upper midsole--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Singh, US 2017/0079379, newly cited] in view of [Bansal, WO 2020/031211, newly cited] and [Luthi, US 2001/0001907, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Singh discloses (Figs. 3-5):
A sole (the combined elements shown in each of Figs. 3-5; no specific numeral is provided for the sole itself; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) that forms a part of a shoe 300, the sole comprising:
an upper midsole 350; a lower midsole 415;
a plate 320 between the upper midsole and the lower midsole; and
an outer sole 418 covering a lower surface of the lower midsole (Figs. 3-5);
wherein the plate is configured such that an entirety of the plate is spaced from the outer sole of the sole (via the combined 412 and 413; Figs. 3-5), the plate is configured to extend from a position superimposed in a direction of thickness of the sole in a front end of a foot of a wearer of the shoe to a position superimposed in the direction of thickness of the sole in a rear end of the foot of the wearer (Figs. 3-5).
Singh Figs. 3-5 does not expressly disclose the plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole.
Looking to Fig. 3, upper midsole 350 appears to be projecting beyond plate 320 in a toe region thereof; however, Fig. 3 is a two dimensional view of a three dimensional object such that it cannot be determined from Fig. 3 alone whether or not the plate is configured to be spaced as claimed.
However and in further view of Singh:
Singh Fig. 2 teaches a plate 120 configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of an upper midsole 250 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole of Singh Figs. 3-5 such that its plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole, as in Fig. 2 of Singh, in order to yield the predictable result providing toe and heel cushioning via the upper midsole across the entire longitudinal length of the sole including at toe side end and heel side end and to provide weight distribution within a region of the sole that is spaced apart from the toe side end and the heel side end via the plate being disposed spaced apart from the toe side end and the heel side end for a wearer whose weight upon the sole rests within the region of the sole that is spaced apart from the toe side end and the heel side end.
and/or
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole of Singh Figs. 3-5 such that its plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole, as in Fig. 2 of Singh, in order to provide the load balancing, stability, and shock absorption described in the Abstract of Singh. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to arrange the plate relative to the upper midsole and would have expected the sole to perform the functions described in the Abstract of Singh to be achieved if the plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole based on the teaching of Singh Fig. 2 that an arrangement wherein a plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of an upper midsole is an appropriate arrangement therefor.
Singh does not expressly disclose
the plate having a reinforcement portion including a composite material containing a synthetic resin and a plurality of fibers,
the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm and has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction.
Singh does teach the plate includes a synthetic resin (i.e. nylon) and is rigid: “shank 320 is made of a material such as nylon that when cured is relatively rigid”; para 38.
Singh does not expressly state that such rigidity is afforded by any fiber(s) thereof; however a person of ordinary skill would have at least recognized that fibrous reinforcement of nylon is capable of providing rigidity thereto.
Nevertheless, Bansal teaches (Figs. 1-3) a plate 100 having a reinforcement portion 106 including a composite material containing a synthetic resin (“polymer...comprising...nylon...In one embodiment, the polymer is nylon”; p. 11 lines 1-4) and a plurality of fibers (“composite material comprising at least one polymer in the range of 50 wt. % to 90 wt. % and at least one type of fiber in the range of 10 wt. % to 50 wt. %”; p. 8 lines 21-23), the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 3 to 24 mm (p. 4 line 18), and has an orientation property, the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region 106a, 106b (i.e. the combined 106a and 106b) where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part 106a located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed (it is noted Bansal is configured such that when placed on a planar ground surface, 106a is configured to be closer to said planar ground surface than is 106b; Figs. 1-2) toward the rear (i.e. from 106a toward 106b; Fig. 1; wherein “The orientation of the fiber varies along the length of the second operative portion (106) and preferably, the at least one type of fiber being more oriented in a rear portion/free end (106b) and mid portion of the second operative portion as compared to a front portion (106a) of the second operative portion (106), thereby the second operative portion (106) in proximity of the rear end (104b) of the first operative portion (104) is more flexible as compared to the rear portion/free end (106b) and mid portion of the second operative portion (106)”;p. 10 lines 6-12) in the foot length direction (Fig. 1).
Although specific values for angular arrangement relative to the direction are not disclosed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “The orientation of the fiber” is an arrangement wherein fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume insofar as an individual fiber that has an “orientation” would have an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a direction of not larger than forty-five degrees, and a person of ordinary skill would further expect a majority of the volume of fibers to have such an angle such that the fibers, in aggregate, are oriented within 106a and 106b as described in Bansal.
Bansal does not teach the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm. Rather, as stated above, the range taught by Bansal—i.e. 3 to 24 mm (p. 4 line 18)—is broader than the claimed range.
Because Bansal is concerned with “The provision of the diameter and the length of the fibers in the ranges mentioned herein above aids in enhancing the strength or the stiffness of the insole” (final lines of p. 10) provides a range (i.e. 3-24 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed weight average fiber length values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired sole properties. The claimed average fiber length is merely an optimum or workable average fiber length and the average fiber length of the fibers in the reinforcement portion is expected to affect strength and stiffness of the reinforcement portion.
Bansal further teaches the plate and its reinforcement portion 106 are to “overcome[]” a “drawback” of “insoles or insole boards for the heel-bearing footwear are not rigid or strong especially for higher and sleeker heels. In stilettoes, pencil heels higher than three inches cause major pressure on lateral arch (other than ball joint) and instability leading the wearer to wobble”; a “conventional...insole which support the lateral arch is not strong enough to avoid lateral twisting...This increases the probability of failure of the insole board” (p. 1 line 24 – p. 2 line 4).
Bansal further teaches the specific increasing orientation within the orientation region 106a, 106b is such that “in proximity of the rear end (104b) of the first operative portion (104) is more flexible as compared to the rear portion/free end (106b) and mid portion of the second operative portion (106)” (p. 10 lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Singh such that the plate having a reinforcement portion including a composite material containing a synthetic resin and a plurality of fibers, the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm and has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof a direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction in order to provide stability and/or strength to the plate via the composite material, as taught by Bansal (p. 1 line 24 – p. 2 line 4); to provide additional heel stability via a relatively greater stiffness in the heel region of the plate via the orientation region so arranged, as suggested by Bansal (p. 10 lines 6-12) wherein the degree of strength and stiffness afforded by the average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm is appropriate for a wearer who desires the degree of strength and stiffness afforded thereby.
Thus the modified Singh meets all claim limitations excepting that pertaining to longitudinal orientation; i.e. the modified Singh as applied above does not meet the limitation has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction.
Bansal in addressing reinforcing portion 106 having the orientation region 106a, 106b does not expressly specify the direction of orientation; though there is an orientation region having an orientation property, Bansal in describing reinforcing portion 106 having the orientation region 106a, 106b does not expressly disclose which direction the orientation is.
Luthi teaches a plate 10 (“stability element 10”; para 53) for a sole for footwear (Abstract) wherein a reinforcing portion 10 comprises an orientation property of parallel alignment to the longitudinal direction of the shoe (“the fibers...aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shoe”; para 53). Although specific values for angular arrangement relative to the longitudinal direction are not disclosed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “the fibers...aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shoe” is an arrangement wherein fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume insofar as an individual fiber that is “aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shoe” would have an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction of not larger than forty-five degrees, and a person of ordinary skill would further expect a majority of the volume of fibers to have such an angle such that the fibers, in aggregate, are “aligned with a longitudinal axis” as described in Luthi.
Luthi further teaches the plate comprising such an orientation property is “a stability element” is configured to “successfully reduce[] the maximum pronation angle of the foot” (para 53) whereby “rotational movements are known in the art as pronation and supination, respectively, and lead to premature fatigue of the joints of the foot and knee, and sometimes to injuries (para 11) and “the present invention” is “to avoid excessive pronation or supination, thereby reducing and/or preventing premature fatigue or injuries to the wearer” (para 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Singh such that the plurality of fibers has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction in order to avoid excessive pronation and/or to reduce and/or prevent fatigue or injuries to the wearer, as taught by Luthi (para 11).
Regarding claim 12:
Singh in view of Bansal and Luthi teach The sole according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Singh therefore meets the limitation A shoe 300 (i.e. 300 of Singh) comprising the sole according to claim 1 (see above treatment of claim 1); and an upper (paras 8 and 11) connected to the sole (paras 8 and 11) and located above the sole (paras 8 and 11 and in the same way that Singh as embodied in Fig. 6 shows the upper of Fig. 6 connected to the sole of Fig. 6 and located above the sole of Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Singh, US 2017/0079379, newly cited] in view of [Bansal, WO 2020/031211, newly cited] and [Luthi, US 2001/0001907, newly cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Singh discloses (Figs. 3-5):
A sole (the combined elements shown in each of Figs. 3-5; no specific numeral is provided for the sole itself; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) that forms a part of a shoe 300, the sole comprising:
an upper midsole 350; a lower midsole 415;
a plate 320 between the upper midsole and the lower midsole; and
an outer sole 418 attached to the lower midsole (Figs. 3-5);
wherein the plate is configured such that an entirety of the plate is spaced from the outer sole of the sole (via the combined 412 and 413; Figs. 3-5), the plate is configured to extend from a position superimposed in a direction of thickness of the sole in a front end of a foot of a wearer of the shoe to a position superimposed in the direction of thickness of the sole in a rear end of the foot of the wearer (Figs. 3-5).
Singh Figs. 3-5 does not expressly disclose the plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole.
Looking to Fig. 3, upper midsole 350 appears to be projecting beyond plate 320 in a toe region thereof; however, Fig. 3 is a two dimensional view of a three dimensional object such that it cannot be determined from Fig. 3 alone whether or not the plate is configured to be spaced as claimed.
However and in further view of Singh:
Singh Fig. 2 teaches a plate 120 configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of an upper midsole 250 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole of Singh Figs. 3-5 such that its plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole, as in Fig. 2 of Singh, in order to yield the predictable result providing toe and heel cushioning via the upper midsole across the entire longitudinal length of the sole including at toe side end and heel side end and to provide weight distribution within a region of the sole that is spaced apart from the toe side end and the heel side end via the plate being disposed spaced apart from the toe side end and the heel side end for a wearer whose weight upon the sole rests within the region of the sole that is spaced apart from the toe side end and the heel side end.
and/or
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole of Singh Figs. 3-5 such that its plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole, as in Fig. 2 of Singh, in order to provide the load balancing, stability, and shock absorption described in the Abstract of Singh. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to arrange the plate relative to the upper midsole and would have expected the sole to perform the functions described in the Abstract of Singh to be achieved if the plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of the upper midsole based on the teaching of Singh Fig. 2 that an arrangement wherein a plate is configured to be spaced from a toe side end and a heel side end of an upper midsole is an appropriate arrangement therefor.
Singh does not expressly disclose
the plate having a reinforcement portion including a composite material containing a synthetic resin and a plurality of fibers,
a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot length direction of the shoe is at least two times as high as a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot width direction of the shoe,
the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm and has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction.
Singh does teach the plate includes a synthetic resin (i.e. nylon) and is rigid: “shank 320 is made of a material such as nylon that when cured is relatively rigid”; para 38.
Singh does not expressly state that such rigidity is afforded by any fiber(s) thereof; however a person of ordinary skill would have at least recognized that fibrous reinforcement of nylon is capable of providing rigidity thereto.
Nevertheless, Bansal teaches (Figs. 1-3) a plate 100 having a reinforcement portion 106 including a composite material containing a synthetic resin (“polymer...comprising...nylon...In one embodiment, the polymer is nylon”; p. 11 lines 1-4) and a plurality of fibers (“composite material comprising at least one polymer in the range of 50 wt. % to 90 wt. % and at least one type of fiber in the range of 10 wt. % to 50 wt. %”; p. 8 lines 21-23), the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 3 to 24 mm (p. 4 line 18), and has an orientation property, the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region 106a, 106b (i.e. the combined 106a and 106b) where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part 106a located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed (it is noted Bansal is configured such that when placed on a planar ground surface, 106a is configured to be closer to said planar ground surface than is 106b; Figs. 1-2) toward the rear (i.e. from 106a toward 106b; Fig. 1; wherein “The orientation of the fiber varies along the length of the second operative portion (106) and preferably, the at least one type of fiber being more oriented in a rear portion/free end (106b) and mid portion of the second operative portion as compared to a front portion (106a) of the second operative portion (106), thereby the second operative portion (106) in proximity of the rear end (104b) of the first operative portion (104) is more flexible as compared to the rear portion/free end (106b) and mid portion of the second operative portion (106)”;p. 10 lines 6-12) in the foot length direction (Fig. 1).
Although specific values for angular arrangement relative to the direction are not disclosed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “The orientation of the fiber” is an arrangement wherein fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume insofar as an individual fiber that has an “orientation” would have an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a direction of not larger than forty-five degrees, and a person of ordinary skill would further expect a majority of the volume of fibers to have such an angle such that the fibers, in aggregate, are oriented within 106a and 106b as described in Bansal.
Bansal does not teach the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm. Rather, as stated above, the range taught by Bansal—i.e. 3 to 24 mm (p. 4 line 18)—is broader than the claimed range.
Because Bansal is concerned with “The provision of the diameter and the length of the fibers in the ranges mentioned herein above aids in enhancing the strength or the stiffness of the insole” (final lines of p. 10) provides a range (i.e. 3-24 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed weight average fiber length values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired sole properties. The claimed average fiber length is merely an optimum or workable average fiber length and the average fiber length of the fibers in the reinforcement portion is expected to affect strength and stiffness of the reinforcement portion.
Bansal further teaches the plate and its reinforcement portion 106 are to “overcome[]” a “drawback” of “insoles or insole boards for the heel-bearing footwear are not rigid or strong especially for higher and sleeker heels. In stilettoes, pencil heels higher than three inches cause major pressure on lateral arch (other than ball joint) and instability leading the wearer to wobble”; a “conventional...insole which support the lateral arch is not strong enough to avoid lateral twisting...This increases the probability of failure of the insole board” (p. 1 line 24 – p. 2 line 4).
Bansal further teaches the specific increasing orientation within the orientation region 106a, 106b is such that “in proximity of the rear end (104b) of the first operative portion (104) is more flexible as compared to the rear portion/free end (106b) and mid portion of the second operative portion (106)” (p. 10 lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Singh such that the plate having a reinforcement portion including a composite material containing a synthetic resin and a plurality of fibers, the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has a weight average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm and has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof a direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction in order to provide stability and/or strength to the plate via the composite material, as taught by Bansal (p. 1 line 24 – p. 2 line 4); to provide additional heel stability via a relatively greater stiffness in the heel region of the plate via the orientation region so arranged, as suggested by Bansal (p. 10 lines 6-12) wherein the degree of strength and stiffness afforded by the average fiber length from 0.4 mm to 7.0 mm is appropriate for a wearer who desires the degree of strength and stiffness afforded thereby.
Thus the modified Singh meets all claim limitations excepting that pertaining to longitudinal orientation and relative flexural rigidity; i.e. the modified Singh as applied above does not meet the limitations a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot length direction of the shoe is at least two times as high as a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot width direction of the shoe, the plurality of fibers in the reinforcement portion has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction.
Bansal in addressing reinforcing portion 106 having the orientation region 106a, 106b does not expressly specify the direction of orientation; though there is an orientation region having an orientation property, Bansal in describing reinforcing portion 106 having the orientation region 106a, 106b does not expressly disclose which direction the orientation is.
Luthi teaches a plate 10 (“stability element 10”; para 53) for a sole for footwear (Abstract) wherein a reinforcing portion 10 comprises an orientation property of parallel alignment to the longitudinal direction of the shoe (“the fibers...aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shoe”; para 53). Although specific values for angular arrangement relative to the longitudinal direction are not disclosed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “the fibers...aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shoe” is an arrangement wherein fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume insofar as an individual fiber that is “aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shoe” would have an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction of not larger than forty-five degrees, and a person of ordinary skill would further expect a majority of the volume of fibers to have such an angle such that the fibers, in aggregate, are “aligned with a longitudinal axis” as described in Luthi.
Luthi further teaches a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot length direction of the shoe is at least two times as high as a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot width direction of the shoe (i.e. "bending stiffness in the fiber direction the fibers arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis" which is "between...450 N/mm² and 500 N/mm²) is at least two times as high as a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot width direction of the shoe (the "bending stiffness perpendicular to the fiber direction" which is "between...90 N/mm² and 160 N/m²") (para 53); it is noted that every value within the range of 450-500 is at least two times as high as every value within the range of 90-160).
Luthi further teaches the plate comprising such an orientation property and relative directional flexural rigidity is “a stability element” is configured to “successfully reduce[] the maximum pronation angle of the foot” (para 53) whereby “rotational movements are known in the art as pronation and supination, respectively, and lead to premature fatigue of the joints of the foot and knee, and sometimes to injuries (para 11) and “the present invention” is “to avoid excessive pronation or supination, thereby reducing and/or preventing premature fatigue or injuries to the wearer” (para 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Singh such that a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot length direction of the shoe is at least two times as high as a flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in a foot width direction of the shoe and the plurality of fibers has an orientation property such that fibers in which an angle formed between a longitudinal direction thereof and a foot length direction is not larger than forty-five degrees occupy at least fifty percent of a total number of fibers per unit volume, and the reinforcement portion includes an orientation region where a number of the fibers having the orientation property increases from a part located closest to a plane on which the shoe is placed toward the rear in the foot length direction in order to avoid excessive pronation and/or to reduce and/or prevent fatigue or injuries to the wearer, as taught by Luthi (para 11).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Singh, US 2017/0079379] in view of [Bansal, WO 2020/031211] and [Luthi, US 2001/0001907] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Diharce, US 2021/0386158, previously cited] and [Shanker, US 2019/0357627, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Singh in view of Bansal and Luthi teach The sole according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Singh does not expressly disclose the reinforcement portion has a specific gravity of not larger than 1.15.
However, Diharce teaches a plate (30) used for a sole that forms part of a shoe (Abstract) wherein the plate has specific gravity in the range of 1.0-1.2 (para 29) further wherein the plate comprises a fiber reinforced composite (para 29).
Because Diharce is concerned with plate material specific gravity and provides a range (i.e. 1-1.2) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed specific gravity value through routine experimentation in order to provide desired plate properties. The claimed specific gravity is merely an optimum or workable specific gravity and the specific gravity of the plate is expected to affect weight and balance of the plate and also of a shoe that contains the plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Singh such that it has a specific gravity not larger than 1.15 in order to yield the predictable result of a plate that has desirable weight and/or balance when combined in a fully assembled footwear for some users.
Singh does not expressly disclose the flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in the foot length direction of the shoe is from 10 GPa to 17 GPa.
However, Shanker teaches a plate (16) comprising a fiber reinforced composite material (Abstract) used for a sole that forms a part of a shoe (Abstract) wherein a flexural rigidity of the plate is 1 GPa to 100 GPa (para 29). Shanker further teaches the plate "provides impact resistance and maintains overall stiffness" of the assembly "when impacted by an object" (para 23).
Because Shanker is concerned with desired impact resistance and sole stiffness and provides a range (i.e. 1 GPa to 100 GPa) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed flexural rigidity values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired plate properties. The claimed rigidity is merely an optimum or workable rigidity and the rigidity of the plate is expected to affect stiffness and impact protection of the plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Singh such that flexural rigidity of the reinforcement portion in the foot length direction of the shoe is from 10 GPa to 17 GPa in order to yield the predictable result of a plate that affords desirable stiffness and impact protection according to some users' preferences and use cases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights