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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 15-17, 19, 20, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chambers (5551173).
Chambers shows A sole for a shoe, comprising:
an inner sole (figure 1) comprising a top surface arranged to face a foot of a wearer of the shoe
when the inner sole is arranged in the shoe,
wherein the top surface comprises a first textured (22) area and a second textured area (22D),
wherein the top surface comprises an untextured area not comprising protuberances,
recesses or holes (area adjacent edge 16, shown below),
wherein the first textured area (22) is located in a toe region of the inner sole and
comprises a first plurality of protuberances (22), and the second textured area (22D) is located in a heel
region of the inner sole and comprises a second plurality of protuberances (22D),
wherein the inner sole comprises a plurality of holes (60) extending through the inner sole
at a central portion of the midfoot region (see figure 1), and wherein the plurality of holes are configured
to provide a proprioceptive effect, and
wherein the untextured area extends between the toe region and the heel region and
extends from a medial edge of the inner sole to the plurality of holes (see marked up figure below) as claimed.
In reference to claim 2, the protuberances 22D are considered to be in a rearmost portion of the heel region.
In reference to claim 3, see lateral heel textured region (lateral heel holes) and medial textured heel region (holes on the medial heel area).
In reference to claims 4, 25, and 26, see marked up figure below.
In reference to claim 6, the forward most protuberance (22) and lateral most (22) and protuberance rear and medial of the lateral most (22) extend from the toe region along a lateral region in a midfoot region and ends before the heel region as claimed.
In reference to claim 15, Chambers shows a textile layer (32).
In reference to claim 16, Chambers shows a foam layer (20, see column 4 lines 26-33).
In reference to claim 17, see figures which show different shapes.
In reference to claims 19 and 20, see column 3 lines 19-22 which states that the insoles may be formed as part of footwear.
PNG
media_image1.png
1068
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers.
Chambers discloses the claimed invention except for the exact size of the protuberances. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the protuberances of a size as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
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.
In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet.
Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425.
/MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights