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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/21/2025, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1-7, 9-19 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heel portion, two opposing end portions, two opposing first and second side portions, a first wall surface, a second wall surface, the footbed lower layer having a toe portion, a heel portion, first and second side walls, an interfacing wall, an inclined and arcuately directed sidewall, a vertex portion must be shown and labeled in the elected embodiment or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the upper and lower layers of the footbed are integrally formed relative to one another, a first side strap portion and a second side strap portion extending from the front strap portion to terminate at respective positions on the upper layer of the footbed adjacent the heel portion of the footbed, wherein the first side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the big toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the first side portion of the footbed and the second side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the little toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the second side portion of the footbed, a first wall surface extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second side portions of the footbed, and wherein the first wall surface is positioned between a section of the upper layer of the footbed at which the first and second side strap portions terminate and the heel portion of the footbed to thereby define a first removed portion at the heel portion of the footbed, wherein the upper layer of the footbed has a second wall surface extending between one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed adjacent the toe portion of the footbed and the second side portion of the footbed to thereby define a secondthereby, a weight of the user is directed towards the toes of the user's foot are not found in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the upper and lower layers of the footbed are integrally formed relative to one another”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec. In fact, it seems from the spec that each layer is separately formed and then united by adhesive (para. 211) which contradicts the two layers be integrally formed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first side strap portion and a second side strap portion extending from the front strap portion to terminate at respective positions on the upper layer of the footbed adjacent the heel portion of the footbed”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label the heel portion of the footbed in the relied in embodiment such that this limitation can be determined from the figures. The examiner notes that the spec provides in para. 145 “A termination portion of the inside strap portion 32a and that of the outside strap portion 32b are fixed to each of both side portions of a foot arch region of the footbed 20.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the first side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the big toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the first side portion of the footbed and the second side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the little toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the second side portion of the footbed”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec and the drawing do not label the first and second side portions or show the foot within the footwear in the relied in embodiment such that this limitation can be determined from the figures.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first wall surface extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second side portions of the footbed, and wherein the first wall surface is positioned between a section of the upper layer of the footbed at which the first and second side strap portions terminate and the heel portion of the footbed to thereby define a first removed portion at the heel portion of the footbed”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label the first and second side portions or the heel portion such that this limitation can be determined from the figures in the relied in embodiment.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the upper layer of the footbed has a second wall surface extending between one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed adjacent the toe portion of the footbed and the second side portion of the footbed to thereby define a second
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the lower layer of the footbed is contoured for having a shape substantially matched with a shape defined by the user's foot”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a footbed lower layer adapted to be contoured to a user's foot”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a footbed upper layer partially extending between the toe and heel portions of the footbed lower layer”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label the toe and heel portions of the footbed lower layer such that this feature can be determined from the figures.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the footbed upper layer including an interfacing wall extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second sidewalls of the footbed lower layer to be positioned adjacent to the heel portion of the footbed lower layer”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label the sidewalls and heel portion of the lower layer such that this feature can be determined from the figures.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an inclined and arcuately-directed sidewall configured to be adjacent to the little toe of the user's foot and extending from an end of the toe portion of the footbed lower layer to terminate at the second sidewall of the footbed lower layer at a position adjacent to the interfacing wall”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this set of features in the spec and the drawings do not label an end of the toe portion of the footbed lower layer or the second side wall or the interfacing wall such that these features can be determined from the figures.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the front strap portion being fixedly attached to the footbed upper layer at a vertex portion thereof”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec and the drawing does not label a vertex portion so as to provide clarity.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein upon mounting of the user's foot onto the footbed upper layer, a middle toe, a ring toe, and the little toe of the user's foot are configured to be displaced transversely towards the big toe of the user's foot and the heel of the user's foot is configured to be displaced longitudinally towards the toes of the user's foot, thereby, a weight of the user is directed towards the toes of the user's foot”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because the examiner does not find this feature in the spec, particularly the transverse and longitudinal displacement.
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 8 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “the upper and lower layers of the footbed are integrally formed relative to one another” because the specification recites that each layer is separately formed and then united by adhesive (para. 211) which contradicts the two layers be integrally formed.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “upper and lower layers…are disposed in a vertical relationship…with respect to the wearer’s foot”. A wearer’s foot could be placed in many different positions relative to the footwear and therefore it is not clear how the vertical relationship is defined with respect to a wearer’s foot or how this impacts the structure of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “a first side strap portion and a second side strap portion extending from the front strap portion to terminate at respective positions on the upper layer of the footbed adjacent the heel portion of the footbed” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec and the figures do not label the heel portion so as to provide clarity.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “wherein the first side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the big toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the first side portion of the footbed and the second side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the little toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the second side portion of the footbed” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec and the drawing do not label the first and second side portions or show the foot within the footwear in the relied in embodiment so as to provide clarity.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “a first wall surface extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second side portions of the footbed, and wherein the first wall surface is positioned between a section of the upper layer of the footbed at which the first and second side strap portions terminate and the heel portion of the footbed to thereby define a first removed portion at the heel portion of the footbed”. This limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label the first and second side portions or the heel portion in the relied on embodiment so as to provide clarity.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “wherein the upper layer of the footbed has a second wall surface extending between one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed adjacent the toe portion of the footbed and the second side portion of the footbed to thereby define a second
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “the lower layer of the footbed is contoured for having a shape substantially matched with a shape defined by the user's foot” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec. Additionally, a user’s foot can have many different shapes and it is not clear how close to this shape the lower layer would need to be in order to have a shape “substantially” matched with a shape defined by the user’s foot. Therefore it is not clear what shapes would be encompassed by ”contoured for having a shape substantially matched with a shape defined by the user's foot”.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what the applicant means by “the footbed is slanted with respect to a vertical direction defined by the user's foot” because a user’s foot can be oriented in all different directions by rotating the user’s ankle and therefore it is not clear how the vertical direction is defined.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what the applicant means by “a footbed lower layer adapted to be contoured to a user's foot” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec. It is not clear if the applicant is trying to claim a softness of the lower layer or if the applicant is trying to define the outer perimeter as being foot shaped.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what the applicant means by “a footbed upper layer partially extending between the toe and heel portions of the footbed lower layer” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec. The upper layer is also above the lower layer and therefore it is not clear how it extends between portions below it. Furthermore, it is unclear how it extends “partially” between these portions because the drawing doesn’t label the toe and heel portions so as to provide clarity.
Claim 20 it is unclear what the applicant means by “the footbed upper layer including an interfacing wall extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second sidewalls of the footbed lower layer to be positioned adjacent to the heel portion of the footbed lower layer” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label the sidewalls and heel portion of the lower layer so as to provide clarity. It is also not clear how the footbed upper layer including an interfacing wall extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second sidewalls of the footbed lower layer when the footbed upper layer is above the footbed lower layer.
Claim 20 it is unclear what the applicant means by “an inclined and arcuately-directed sidewall configured to be adjacent to the little toe of the user's foot and extending from an end of the toe portion of the footbed lower layer to terminate at the second sidewall of the footbed lower layer at a position adjacent to the interfacing wall” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner doesn’t find this feature in the spec and the drawings do not label an end of the toe portion of the footbed lower layer or the second side wall or the interfacing wall so as to provide clarity.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what the applicant means by “the front strap portion being fixedly attached to the footbed upper layer at a vertex portion thereof”. Is the vertex portion part of the front strap portion or the footbed upper layer?
Claim 20 it is unclear what the applicant means by “wherein upon mounting of the user's foot onto the footbed upper layer, a middle toe, a ring toe, and the little toe of the user's foot are configured to be displaced transversely towards the big toe of the user's foot and the heel of the user's foot is configured to be displaced longitudinally towards the toes of the user's foot, thereby, a weight of the user is directed towards the toes of the user's foot” because claim limitations are interpreted in light of the specification and the examiner does not find this feature in the spec, particularly the transverse and longitudinal displacement.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushiyama (JP2009189804) in view of Chehebar (U.S. 20220071337) in view of Kim (U.S. 20210100312).
Regarding claim 8, Urushiyama teaches a footwear (figs. 1-4), comprising: a footbed (sole including 1,3) having a toe portion and a heel portion and extending longitudinally between two opposing end portions (front and rear ends)(fig. 1), the footbed including an upper layer (3), a lower layer (1), and two opposing first and second side portions (side adjacent big toe, side adjacent little toe, fig. 4), the footbed being configured for mountingly receiving a user's foot (fig. 4), and the first side portion being configured to be adjacent to a big toe of the user's foot and the second side portion being configured to be adjacent to a little toe of the user's foot (fig. 4), wherein one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed is adjacent to the toe portion of the footbed and the other one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed is adjacent to the heel portion of the footbed (figs. 1,4), wherein the upper and lower layers of the footbed are integrally formed relative to one another and are disposed in a vertical relationship relative to each other and with respect to the user's foot (figs. 1,4); and a strap (4,5) attached to the footbed and including a side strap portion (5) extending from a front strap portion (4), the front strap portion being fixedly positioned on the upper layer of the footbed at the toe portion of the footbed and being configured to be interposed between the big toe and an index toe of the user's foot (figs. 1,4), and the side strap portion being configured to be disposed over a top portion of the user's foot (figs. 1,4) and including a first side strap portion and a second side strap portion (each of 5) extending from the front strap portion to terminate at respective positions on the upper layer of the footbed adjacent the heel portion of the footbed (fig. 1) to thereby be fixedly attached to the upper layer of the footbed (fig.1), wherein the first side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the big toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the first side portion of the footbed and the second side strap portion is configured to be disposed substantially above the little toe of the user's foot to be adjacent to the second side portion of the footbed (figs. 1,4); and wherein the upper layer of the footbed has a second wall surface (2) extending between one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed adjacent the toe portion of the footbed and the second side portion of the footbed to thereby define a removed portion at the toe portion of the footbed (figs. 1,4, abstract), wherein the second wall surface extends substantially longitudinally from the one of the two opposing end portions of the footbed adjacent the toe portion of the footbed to form an arc contour to extend to the second side portion of the footbed (fig. 1); wherein the lower layer of the footbed is contoured for having a shape substantially matched with a shape defined by the user's foot (fig. 4) ;wherein said second removed portion defined by the upper layer of the footbed is configured to be positioned in opposing relationship to
But doesn’t specifically teach wherein the second wall surface of said upper layer material forming the lower layer of the footbed is more flexible than a material forming the upper layer of the footbed.
While Urushiyama doesn’t discuss and wherein the second wall surface of said upper layer
While the relied on figures of Urushiyama do not show a view of the footwear wherein the second wall surface passes underneath the second side strap portion to extend to the second side portion of the footbed, and thereby at least a section of the second wall surface is disposed underneath the second side strap portion, fig. 1, a and d of the second set of figures of Urushiyama (on pg. 7) shows this feature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second wall surface to pass underneath the second side strap portion to extend to the second side portion of the footbed, and thereby at least a section of the second wall surface is disposed underneath the second side strap portion in order to cover a desired area to sufficiently strap in the wearer’s foot.
Urushiyama fails to teach wherein the upper layer of the footbedportions of the footbed, and wherein the first wall surface is positioned between a section of the upper layer of the footbed at which the first and second side strap portions terminate and the heel portion of the footbed to thereby define a first removed portion at the heel portion of the footbed, and wherein the first removed portion defined by the upper layer of the footbed is configured to be positioned in opposing relationship to a heel of the user's foot,wherein a material forming the lower layer of the footbed is more flexible than a material forming the upper layer of the footbed.
Chehebar teaches footwear having an upper footbed layer (upper layer of 20 extending from the toe end to and including the front wall of 26, para. 33, figs. 1-5), a footbed lower layer (bottom of 26 or other lower layers per figs. 4,5), the upper layer of the footbed
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the upper layer of the footwear of Urushiyama so as to include a horizontal recess and embedded strap thereby providing a first wall surface extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second side portions of the footbed, and wherein the first wall surface is positioned between a section of the upper layer of the footbed at which the first and second side strap portions terminate and the heel portion of the footbed to thereby define a first removed portion at the heel portion of the footbed, and wherein the first removed portion defined by the upper layer of the footbed is configured to be positioned in opposing relationship to a heel of the user's foot in view of Chehebar in order to allow the footwear to convert between a flip flop configuration and a sandal to hold the foot of the wearer more securely when needed (abstract, para. 5 of Chehebar).
The Urushiyama/Chehebar combined reference fails to teach a material forming the lower layer of the footbed is more flexible than a material forming the upper layer of the footbed.
Kim teaches footwear wherein the footbed can be made of multiple layers of one or more materials (para. 4) and a material forming a lower layer (40 or 53) (figs. 18a,b, fig. 23d) of the footbed can be a soft, cushioning, compressible material (para. 141) to absorb impact and/or to aid the wearer in achieving desired positioning of the foot (paras. 141,145,147). The material forming the lower layer is more flexible than the upper layer at least because this allows the positioning faces to maintain their shape when 40 or 53 is compressed (paras. 141, 147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the lower layer of the combined reference out of a material that is more flexible than a material forming the upper layer of the footbed in view of Kim in order to absorb impact and/or to aid the wearer in achieving desired positioning of the foot (paras. 141,145,147 of Kim).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushiyama (JP2009189804) in view of Chehebar (U.S. 20220071337).
Regarding claim 20, Urushiyama teaches a footwear (figs. 1-4), comprising: a footbed lower layer (layer forming 1, fig. 1) adapted to be contoured to a user's foot (fig. 4) and including a toe portion corresponding in position to toes of the user's foot and a heel portion corresponding in position to a heel of the user's foot (fig. 1, layer extends from toe to heel), the footbed lower layer extending longitudinally from the heel portion to the toe portion (fig. 1), and the footbed lower layer, further, including two opposing first and second sidewalls (side wall adjacent big toe area, side wall adjacent little toe area, figs. 1,4), wherein the first sidewall is configured to be adjacent to a big toe of the user's foot and the second sidewall is configured to be adjacent to a little toe of the user's foot (fig. 4); a footbed upper layer (layer forming 3) partially extending between the toe and heel portions of the footbed lower layer to thereby span a surface area substantially lesser than a surface area spanned by the footbed lower layer (figs. 1,4), and the footbed upper layer, further, including an inclined and arcuately-directed sidewall (figs. 1,4, inclined away from the big toe area) configured to be adjacent to the little toe of the user's foot and extending from an end of the toe portion of the footbed lower layer to terminate at the second sidewall of the footbed lower layer (figs. 1,4); and a strap member (4,5) including a front strap portion (4) and a side strap portion (5) having a first side strap portion disposed adjacent to the first sidewall of the footbed lower layer and a second side strap portion disposed adjacent to the second sidewall of the footbed lower layer (fig. 1), the front strap portion being fixedly attached to the footbed upper layer at a vertex portion thereof and being adapted for separating the big toe of the user's foot from an index toe thereof (fig. 1), and the first and second side strap portions extending from the front strap portion to terminate at respective positions on the footbed upper layer to thereby be fixedly attached to the footbed upper layer (fig. 1);
but fails to teach the footbed upper layer including an interfacing wall extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second sidewalls of the footbed lower layer to be positioned adjacent to the heel portion of the footbed lower layer,the inclined and arcuately-directed sidewall terminates at a position adjacent to the interfacing wall, the first and second side strap portions terminate at respective positions on the footbed upper layer adjacent to and in front of the interfacing wall, and wherein upon mounting of the user's foot onto the footbed upper layer, a middle toe, a ring toe, and the little toe of the user's foot are configured to be displaced transversely towards the big toe of the user's foot and the heel of the user's foot is configured to be displaced longitudinally towards the toes of the user's foot, thereby, a weight of the user is directed towards the toes of the user's foot.
Chehebar teaches footwear having an upper footbed layer (upper layer of 20 extending from the toe end to and including the front wall of 26, para. 33, figs. 1-5), a footbed lower layer (bottom of 26 or other lower layers per figs. 4,5), the footbed upper layer including an interfacing wall (front wall forming 26, figs. 1-5) extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second sidewalls of the footbed lower layer (fig. 2), to be positioned adjacent to the heel portion of the footbed lower layer (fig. 2), first and second side strap portions (22, fig. 2) terminate at respective positions on the footbed upper layer adjacent to and in front of the interfacing wall (fig. 2), a strap (24) embedded in 26 (para. 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the upper layer of Urushiyama so as to include a horizontal recess and embedded strap thereby providing an interfacing wall extending fully and transversely between the two opposing first and second sidewalls of the footbed lower layer to be positioned adjacent to the heel portion of the footbed lower layer, the first and second side strap portions terminate at respective positions on the footbed upper layer adjacent to and in front of the interfacing wall in view of Chehebar in order to allow the footwear to convert between a flip flop configuration and a sandal to hold the foot of the wearer more securely when needed (abstract, para. 5 of Chehebar). The combined reference results in the inclined and arcuately-directed sidewall terminating at a position adjacent to the interfacing wall due to the location of the interfacing wall per fig. 2 of Chehebar and the location of the arcuately-directed sidewall per figs. 1,4,5 of Urushiyama.
The combined reference doesn’t specifically teach the functionality of upon mounting of the user's foot onto the footbed upper layer, a middle toe, a ring toe, and the little toe of the user's foot are configured to be displaced transversely towards the big toe of the user's foot and the heel of the user's foot is configured to be displaced longitudinally towards the toes of the user's foot, thereby, a weight of the user is directed towards the toes of the user's foot.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the combined reference would allow the functionality of upon mounting of the user's foot onto the footbed upper layer, a middle toe, a ring toe, and the little toe of the user's foot are configured to be displaced transversely towards the big toe of the user's foot and the heel of the user's foot is configured to be displaced longitudinally towards the toes of the user's foot, thereby, a weight of the user is directed towards the toes of the user's foot because the wearer can distribute their weight on their foot while wearing the footwear (i.e. distributing more weight to their toes) in such a manner so as to achieve the claimed function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ABBY M SPATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00 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, 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.
/ABBY M SPATZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights