DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted on November 16, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 7-8 and 10 are amended and claims 13-16 are new, resulting in claims 1-16 are pending for examination.
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 7-12 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 7 recites the limitation "the second fabric material" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the " in line1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from claim 7, rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxton (WO 2009/120723)1 in view of Morris (US 2014/0360053)1.
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 13-16, Paxton teaches a dog boot which is readily placed about a dog’s paw (page 8). As can be seen in the annotated Fig. 1 provided below, the boot has a vertical zone, a transition zone and a horizontal zone (Fig. 1). The boot 1 includes a bottom 10 having a non-slip ground-engaging surface 12 (horizontal zone) (page 10). The boot also includes various layers of Kevlar Ice Pick (para-aramid) material (pages 15 and 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paxton is silent as to the non-slip ground engaging surface (horizontal zone) comprising silicone rubber yarns.
Morris teaches a pet boot having therapeutic properties provided by increased traction on slippery surfaces and easier control of bodily movements while maintaining tactile sensitivity between pet paw and walking surface (paragraph [0003]). The boot comprises rubber strands of Liquid Silicone Rubber (LSR) or similar flexible material laid out in parallel and at right angles to create a grid on a bottom portion of the boot (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). The LSR strands are oval to provide increased comfort for the animal and the cells of the grid are open to allow air flow (paragraph [0025]). The boot may be formed from aromatic polyamides such as Kevlar or Nomex (paragraph [0038]).
Since both Paxton and Morris teach pet boots made from Kevlar comprising a non-slip bottom surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-slip surface of Paxton to include a grid of Liquid Silicone Rubber filaments in order to provide a boot that is comfortable and provides air flow while also providing increases traction on slippery surfaces.
Paxton in view of Morris does not explicitly teach the proportions of the Liquid Silicone Rubber threads and the Kevlar (para-aramid). However, Paxton at pages 15-16 teaches that the Kevlar is necessary for protection, however too many layers will provide a boot that is undesirably bulky, stiff, and generally uncomfortable. As discussed above, Morris teaches that the Liquid Silicone Rubber provides traction on slippery surfaces, however there must be space between the strands in order to provide sufficient air flow.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of Liquid Silicone Rubber threads and the Kevlar (para-aramid) in the boot to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a boot that has sufficient puncture protection and air flow, but is not bulky or stiff and provides the necessary traction on slippery surfaces. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claims 3 and 5, Paxton in view of Morris teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Paxton is silent as to the use of meta-aramid threads or yarns, however Morris teaches that aromatic polyamides such as Kevlar or Nomex (meta-aramid) are suitable for forming the boot (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included Nomex (meta-aramid) in the boot of Paxton to provide the desired protection, and because both Kevlar and Nomex (meta-aramid) are known in the art as suitable materials for animal boots. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). In the instant case, the predictable result is a protective boot for animals.
With respect to claim 6, Paxton in view of Morris teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Paxton further teaches that as shown in figure 1, boot 1 has the appearance of a flexible or somewhat flaccid tube, with a closed end 3, adjacent toe protective patch 22 and an open end 2 distal therefrom (tube sock construction) (page 10).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxton (WO 2009/120723)2 in view of Morris (US 2014/0360053)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaeger (US 2008/0242176)1.
With respect to claim 2, Paxton in view of Morris teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Paxton in view of Morris is silent as to the liquid silicone rubber containing fluoro, vinyl, and methyl groups.
Jaeger teaches fabrics that are treated with polysiloxane for heat protection (paragraph [0002]). Jaeger further teaches that FVMQ silicone rubbers have fluoro, methyl, and vinyl substitutions on the polymer chain and provide fuel, oil, and solvent resistance (paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid silicone rubber threads to include FVMQ silicone rubber in order to provide boots which provide fuel, oil, and solvent resistance.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxton (WO 2009/120723)1 in view of Lyon (US 2023/0363485)1. Supporting evidence provided by Biron (6.5.1 Fibers; Thermoplastics and Thermoplastic Composites)1.
With respect to claim 7, Paxton in view of Morris teaches a dog boot which is readily placed about a dog’s paw (page 8). The boot 1 has the appearance of a flexible or somewhat flaccid tube, with a closed end 3, adjacent toe protective patch 22 and an open end 2 distal therefrom (sock) (page 10). As can be seen in the annotated Fig. 1 provided below, the boot has a fabric bottom section, a fabric surrounding section, a top section, and a fabric leg section (Fig. 1). The boot 1 includes a bottom 10 having a non-slip ground-engaging surface 12 (fabric bottom section) (page 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The boot also includes ten layers of Kevlar material (second fabric), visible in Figs. 10 and 12, on the bottom where the dog will be placing its weight (page 16). As can be seen in Fig. 10, there are 10 layers of Kevlar, the ground-engaging surface 12, and only one additional layer 11, both of which may be nylon (first fabric material) (page 10), resulting in a fabric bottom section that is expected to comprise at least 75% by total weight of Kevlar (second fabric) and nylon (first fabric material). It is known in the art that nylon fibers have a tensile strength of 1000 MPa and an elongation at break of 18% (Biron; Table 6.12 ).
With respect to the elongation at break, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the instant case, the 18% elongation at break of nylon is expected to provide the desired elongation to the footwear.
Paxton does not explicitly teach that the Kevlar (second fabric) has a tensile strength of at least 3200 MPa, and elongation to break of between 1.0 and 4.3%, and a relative density of 1.35. However, page 4 of the instant specification describes Kevlar as having a tensile strength of at least 3200 MPa and a relative density of at least 1.35. The instant disclosures also acknowledges Kevlar (a para-aramid) as suitable for the claimed invention (see, e.g., claims 1 and 4). It is therefore reasonable to presume that Kevlar has the same properties as the claimed second fabric.
Paxton is silent as to the fabric surrounding section and the fabric leg section comprising fabric material having form-fitting elasticity.
Lyon teaches flexible footwear including a sock (paragraph [0042]). The sock may include one or more elastic components in its knit construction to create a form-fitting garment (paragraph [0045]). The sock may include an elastic component around the ball of the foot to secure the sock over the toes and another elastic component around the heel and instep to secure the sock around the sides and the back of the foot (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boot of Paxton to include elastic components where form-fitting properties are desired, such as in the fabric surrounding section and the fabric leg section.
Paxton in view of Lyon teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the fabric surrounding section having at least chemical resistance that allows the fabric to maintain at least 75% of its elasticity for at least one minute at 30oC when exposed to a solution of 92% alcohol and 8% water and the fabric leg section having sufficient form-fitting elasticity as to support a stationary 20 gram weight on the fabric for 5 minutes when attached two inches below a highest point of contact of the fabric leg section and a canine’s leg. It is a reasonable to presume that the above properties are inherent to Paxton in view of Lyon.
Support for said presumption is found in that Paxton in view of Lyon teaches similar materials as the instant invention. The instant specification at pages 8-9 teaches that both classes of aramid polymers, including Kevlar, have a useful level of chemical resistance. As discussed above, Paxton in view of Lyon teaches the use of multiple layers of Kevlar. Paxton further teaches on page 19 that the boots protect dog’s feet from chemicals. Additionally, both Paxton in view of Lyon and the instant specification teach the use of elastic materials to provide form-fitting elasticity. Therefore, due to the use of the same materials, the boots of Paxton in view of Lyon are expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, Paxton in view of Lyon teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above. Paxton further teaches the Kevlar provides puncture and cut resistance (pages 6 and 7). Paxton does not explicitly teach the Kevlar layers provide chemical resistance, however the instant specification at page 9 discloses that both classes of aramid polymers (i.e., meta- and para-) have useful levels of chemical resistance, therefore the claimed chemical resistance is inherent to the Kevlar (para-aramid of Paxton. Paxton does not explicitly teach the Kevlar and puncture resistant layers expending to the top section, however it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide the Kevlar layers wherever puncture and cut resistance is desired.
With respect to claim 9, Paxton teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above. Paxton further teaches the Kevlar provides puncture and cut resistance (pages 6 and 7). Paxton does not explicitly teach the Kevlar and puncture resistant layers expending to the top section, however it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide the Kevlar layers wherever puncture and cut resistance is desired. Additionally, as described in the rejection of claim 7 above, Lyon teaches a sock may include one or more elastic components in its knit construction to create a form-fitting garment (paragraph [0045]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boot of Paxton to include elastic components where form-fitting properties are desired, such as in the leg section.
With respect to claim 10, Paxton teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above. As can be seen in Fig. 9, the fabric structure of the bottom section extends up the side (Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxton (WO 2009/120723)3 in view of Lyon (US 2023/0363485)1 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Morris (US 2014/0360053)1.
With respect to claim 11, Paxton in view of Lyon teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above.
Paxton in view of Lyon is silent as to the fabric bottom comprising a blend of polysilicone rubber filaments and aramid polymer filaments.
Morris teaches a pet boot having therapeutic properties provided by increased traction on slippery surfaces and easier control of bodily movements while maintaining tactile sensitivity between pet paw and walking surface (paragraph [0003]). The boot comprises rubber strands of Liquid Silicone Rubber (LSR) or similar flexible material laid out in parallel and at right angles to create a grid on a bottom portion of the boot (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). The LSR strands are oval to provide increased comfort for the animal and the cells of the grid are open to allow air flow (paragraph [0025]). The boot may be formed from aromatic polyamides such as Kevlar or Nomex (paragraph [0038]).
Since both Paxton in view of Lyon and Morris teach pet boots made from Kevlar comprising a non-slip bottom surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-slip surface of Paxton to include a grid of Liquid Silicone Rubber filaments in order to provide a boot that is comfortable and provides air flow while also providing increases traction on slippery surfaces. This would result in a fabric bottom comprising Liquid Silicone Rubber filaments and Kevlar (aramid polymer) filaments.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxton (WO 2009/120723)4 in view of Lyon (US 2023/0363485)1 and Morris (US 2014/0360053)1 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Perkins (US 2014/0338090)1.
With respect to claim 12, Paxton in view of Lyon and Morris teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above.
Paxton in view of Lyon and Morris is silent as to the Liquid Silicone Rubber threads and the Kevlar fibers being present in a nonwoven.
Perkins teaches a sock having a sole comprising a fabric configured to provide the wearer with traction, yet permits the wearer to twist and pivot their foot relative to the floor without displacing or bunching the sock (paragraph [0002]). The sock includes a pad, which is a material having properties that increase lateral or horizontal friction between the sock and a hard surface (paragraph [0021]). Suitable pad materials include woven materials and nonwoven materials (paragraph [0021]).
Since both Paxton in view of Lyon and Morris and Perkins teach anti-slip socks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Liquid Silicone Rubber strand and Kevlar fabric bottom of Paxton in view of Morris and Perkins to be nonwoven, because nonwoven fabrics are known in the anti-slip sock art to increase the lateral or horizontal friction between a sock and a surface. Morris discusses attaching the Liquid Silicone Rubber to other materials through fusion (paragraph [0045]), therefore 0 wt% adhesive would be required form bonding.
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings
The objections to the drawings have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the specification in the response received on November 16, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The majority of the rejections of claims 7-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed November 16, 2025.
The rejections of claim 7 for lacking sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the second fabric material" and claim 10 for lacking sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the fabric side section" have been maintained.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on November 16, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the response Applicant submits that Morris shows a fabric layer exclusively of LSR fibers and does not provide evidence of combining elastomeric fibers and yarns with para-aramids as recited in the claims.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is respectfully submitted that Morris was not relied on to teach the combination of LSR and Kevlar fabric materials, but rather Paxton in view of Morris was. Paxton teaches a boot made of various levels of Kevlar which includes a bottom 10 having a non-slip ground engaging surface 12 (Paxton; pages 10, 15, 16). Paxton further teaches that the bottom 10 comprises layers of Kevlar to protect the dog’s feet (page 16). It is clear from Paxton that the non-slip surface is placed on the layers of Kevlar in Paxton.
The combination presented previously and above suggests modifying the non-slip surface of Paxton to include a grid of LSR filaments. Therefore, the proposed modification would result in a grid of LSR filaments applied to layers of Kevlar as a ground-engaging surface, resulting in the claimed combination of a) silicone rubber yarn with b) para-aramid yarn.
The response further submits that the fabric material of Paxton does not provide the same properties acknowledged by the instant specification.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Paxton does not teach the same properties disclosed in the instant specification, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The response further submits that Morris fails to evidence the blending of para-aramids into the rubber portions.
These arguments are not persuasive. 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., blending) 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).
It is noted that independent claim 1 merely recites the combination of a) and b), and does not require blending. Claim 11 requires the fabric bottom to comprise a blend of polysilicone rubber filaments and aramid polymer filaments. Since it is the fabric bottom section that comprises the blend and not a single layer fabric or a yarn comprising the blend, an LSR filament grid layered on to a Kevlar fabric would meet the claimed blend in a section.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Previously presented
3 Previously presented
4 Previously presented