Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/517,971

Shoe Indicator System and Kit

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner
PRANGE, SHARON M
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
473 granted / 884 resolved
-16.5% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+47.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
944
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
43.3%
+3.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 884 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 10-12 have been amended, claim 9 has been canceled, and claims 1-8 and 10-14 remain pending in this application. 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 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) 1-8, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 2016/0015115) in view of Schwartz (US 8,881,429). Regarding claim 1, Hammond discloses a shoe indicator kit comprising: a left shoe insert (12) comprising a left shoe indicator (13) bodily integrated thereon, and aligned with an inner edge of the left she insert; and a right shoe insert (12’) comprising a right shoe indicator (13’) bodily integrated thereon, and aligned with an inner edge of the right shoe insert, wherein the left and right shoe indicators define respective left and right-side portions of a figure and are configured to visually align with each other to portray a unified figure across the left and right shoe inserts (paragraphs 0006-0015; Fig. 1). Hammond does not disclose that the indicators are formed of the same material as the insert. Schwartz teaches a left shoe having a left shoe indicator (motif) and a right shoe having a right shoe indicator (motif). The indicators are bodily integrated and formed of the same material as the shoe (for example by dyeing) (column 3, lines 19-27; Fig. 7B, 7C, 8B, 8D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the indicators by dyeing, as taught by Schwartz, in order to provide a permanent image which does not stick up from the insert surface, improving comfort and durability. Regarding claim 2, Hammond discloses a left shoe (10) and a right shoe (10’), each operative to receive the respective left and right shoe insert. Regarding claim 3, Hammond does not disclose that the inserts are permanently integrated within the shoes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to permanently integrate the inserts within the shoes, as it is well known in the art to permanently integrate insole within shoes, preventing unwanted movement of the insoles within the shoes. Regarding claim 4, Hammond discloses that the left and right shoe indicator are at least partially obscured during wear (wherein a wearer’s foot would cover the indicators when worn). Regarding claim 5, Hammond discloses that the unified figure comprises any or a combination of a word, phrase, image, and symbol (such as an image). Regarding claim 6, Hammond discloses that the left and right shoe indicators are displayed in high contrast to any remaining portion of the left and right shoe insoles (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, Hammond discloses a shoe indicator system comprising: a left shoe (10) having disposed thereon a left shoe indicator (13) bodily integrated thereon; and a right shoe (10’) having disposed thereon a right shoe indicator (13’) bodily integrated thereon, wherein the left and right shoe indicators are configured to visually align with one another to portray a unified figure across the left and right shoes (paragraphs 0006-0015; Fig. 1). Hammond does not disclose that the indicators are formed of the same material as the insert. Schwartz teaches a left shoe having a left shoe indicator (motif) and a right shoe having a right shoe indicator (motif). The indicators are bodily integrated and formed of the same material as the shoe (for example by dyeing) (column 3, lines 19-27; Fig. 7B, 7C, 8B, 8D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the indicators by dyeing, as taught by Schwartz, in order to provide a permanent image which does not stick up from the insert surface, improving comfort and durability. Regarding claim 8, Hammond discloses that the unified figure comprises any or a combination of a word, phrase, image, and symbol (such as an image). Regarding claim 10, Hammond discloses that the left and right shoe indicators are bodily integrated into a respective left and right shoe insole (12, 12’), each such indicator respectively aligned with an inner edge of the left and right shoe insole, and wherein the right and left shoe indicators are readily visible through an opening defined by a collar of each of the left and right shoes yet visually obscured when such shoes are worn by a user (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11, Hammond discloses that the left and right shoe indicators are bodily integrated into and positioned on respective left and right ground-facing surfaces of each sole of the shoes (wherein the surface shown in Fig. 1 may be a ground-facing surface, depending on the orientation of the shoe with the ground). Regarding claim 12, Hammond discloses that the left and right shoe indicators are positioned on an outer edge (as seen in Fig. 1, the indicators are positioned on an outermost edge) of the ground-facing surfaces of each sole of the shoes such that the indicators are separated when the shoes are worn (wherein the shoes, and therefore the indicators, are separated from each other when worn, such as when walking) and are configured to visually align to portray the unified figure when the shoes are overturned and viewed from the bottom (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 14, Hammond discloses that the left and right shoe indicators are displayed in high visual contrast to the left and right shoes (Fig. 1). Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond and Schwartz, as applied to claim 7, further in view of Cariffe, Jr. et al. (US 3,258,858), herein Cariffe. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hammond and Schwartz does not disclose that the left and right indicators are positioned on an outer surface of the shoes. Cariffe teaches a pair of shoes having right and left shoe indicators (11, 12). The indicators may be positioned on the insoles (as in Fig. 1), or on an outer surface of the shoes to lend an aesthetic appearance to the shoes (column 2, lines 61-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the right and left shoe indicators on an outer surface of the shoes, as taught by Cariffe, in order to lend an aesthetic appearance to the shoes. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 have been 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. 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 SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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. /SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588737
FOOTWEAR SOLE AND RELATED METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569029
SOLE AND SHOE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564246
SHOE HAVING RESILIENT HEEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12550981
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR WITH A PULLEY SYSTEM HAVING A GUIDE PORTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550969
GOLF SHOES HAVING MULTI-SURFACE TRACTION OUTSOLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.3%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 884 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month