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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 19, 2025 has been entered.
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.
1. Claim(s) 14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 5,918,338) in view of Cheskin (US 2007/0033834), and in further view of Issler (US 2018/0352901).
Regarding Claim 14, Wong discloses a shoe comprising: a shoe sole member (4) that comprises a front member (7,11) arranged on a front side of the shoe and a rear member (12) arranged on a rear side of the shoe: a first interlocking member (6) that interlocks the front member and the rear member (Col.2, line 66-Col.3, line 2; as seen in Fig.1 & 2); and a second interlocking member (3) that interlocks the front member and the rear member (as seen in Fig.1); wherein the second interlocking member comprises an insole (Col.1, line 67). Wong does not disclose the insole has a metatarsus portion projectedly curved upward in an arch shape, a rigidity of a central part of the metatarsus portion extending in the front-rear direction is higher than a rigidity of left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion, when the insole is viewed from above, the insole has a non-stretchable reinforcing sheet along a lower surface of the insole or along an upper surface of the insole, and when the insole is viewed from above, the non-stretchable reinforcing sheet is arranged in the central part of the metatarsus portion and is not arranged on the left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion. However, Cheskin teaches an insole (20) having a metatarsus portion (i.e. metatarsal region of 20 containing 80A-80E) projectedly curved upward in an arch shape (38)(as seen in Fig.5 & 9), a rigidity of a central part of the metatarsus portion (i.e. 80A-80E containing 24) extending in the front-rear direction is higher than a rigidity of left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion (see annotated Figure below), when the insole is viewed from above (as seen in Fig.5 & 11), the insole has a non-stretchable reinforcing sheet (24) along a lower surface of the insole or along an upper surface of the insole (as seen in Fig.1), and when the insole is viewed from above (as seen in Fig.5 & 11), the non-stretchable reinforcing sheet (24) is arranged in the central part of the metatarsus portion (i.e. 80A-80E containing 24) and is not arranged on the left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion (see annotated Figure below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insole of Wong to have a metatarsus portion projectedly curved upward in an arch shape and a non-stretchable reinforcing sheet arranged in the central part of the metatarsus portion and not arranged on the left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion, as taught by Cheskin, in order to provide an insole that has enhanced cushioning and controls foot motion.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wong and Cheskin disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Wong does not disclose the insole has a symmetrical shape relative to a centerline passing through a center of the insole and extending in a front-rear direction, when the insole is viewed from above. However, Issler teaches an insole (1000/1500/1607) having a symmetrical shape relative to a centerline (1250) passing through a center of the insole in a width direction of the insole and extending in a front-rear direction, when the insole is viewed from above (para.80, 82 & 85; as seen in Fig.1D & 1G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insole of Wong to be symmetrical, as taught by Issler, in order to provide an insole that provides symmetrical support to the user’s foot, while also allowing the insole to flipped as needed.
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Wong discloses a shoe according to claim 14, wherein the insole is configured such that, when a load is applied to one side (i.e. lateral side) in the width direction of the metatarsus portion from above, the opposite side of the insole (i.e. medial side) protrudes upward (Cheskin: as seen in Fig.4, 6, 9 & 10).
Regarding Claim 20, Wong discloses a shoe comprising: a shoe sole member (4) that comprises a front member (7,11) arranged on a front side of the shoe and a rear member (12) arranged on a rear side of the shoe: a first interlocking member (6) that interlocks the front member and the rear member (Col.2, line 66-Col.3, line 2; as seen in Fig.1 & 2); and a second interlocking member (3) that interlocks the front member and the rear member (as seen in Fig.1); wherein the second interlocking member comprises an insole (Col.1, line 67), an entirety of the second interlocking member (3) is separate from the first interlocking member (6) with a space therebetween (i.e. the space that contains 5)(as seen in Fig.1). Wong does not disclose the insole has a metatarsus portion projectedly curved upward in an arch shape; a rigidity of a central part of the metatarsus portion extending in the front-rear direction is higher than a rigidity of left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion, when the insole is viewed from above, the insole has a non-stretchable reinforcing sheet along a lower surface of the insole or along an upper surface of the insole, and when the insole is viewed from above, the non-stretchable reinforcing sheet is arranged in the central part of the metatarsus portion and is not arranged on the left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion. However, Cheskin teaches an insole (20) having a metatarsus portion (i.e. metatarsal region of 20 containing 80A-80E) projectedly curved upward in an arch shape (38)(as seen in Fig.5 & 9), a rigidity of a central part of the metatarsus portion (i.e. 80A-80E containing 24) extending in the front-rear direction is higher than a rigidity of left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion (see annotated Figure above), when the insole is viewed from above (as seen in Fig.5 & 11), the insole has a non-stretchable reinforcing sheet (24) along a lower surface of the insole or along an upper surface of the insole (as seen in Fig.1), and when the insole is viewed from above (as seen in Fig.5 & 11), the non-stretchable reinforcing sheet (24) is arranged in the central part of the metatarsus portion (i.e. 80A-80E containing 24) and is not arranged on the left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion (see annotated Figure above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insole of Wong to have a metatarsus portion projectedly curved upward in an arch shape and a non-stretchable reinforcing sheet arranged in the central part of the metatarsus portion and not arranged on the left and right side portions in the width direction of the metatarsus portion, as taught by Cheskin, in order to provide an insole that has enhanced cushioning and controls foot motion.
Wong and Cheskin disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Wong does not disclose the insole has a symmetrical shape relative to a centerline passing through a center of the insole and extending in a front-rear direction, when the insole is viewed from above. However, Issler teaches an insole (1000/1500/1607) having a symmetrical shape relative to a centerline (1250) passing through a center of the insole in a width direction of the insole and extending in a front-rear direction, when the insole is viewed from above (para.80, 82 & 85; as seen in Fig.1D & 1G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insole of Wong to be symmetrical, as taught by Issler, in order to provide an insole that provides symmetrical support to the user’s foot, while also allowing the insole to flipped as needed.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights