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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 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) 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne (US 2008/0127518) in view of Levy (US 2,288,199).
Regarding Claim 1, Byrne discloses a footbed system comprising: a footbed (30) having a first length; and a removeable foot support (60) defining a base having a height and having a second length that is less than the first length of the footbed (as seen in Fig.2); wherein the footbed system comprises a first configuration with the removeable foot support (i.e. when 60 is attached to 30); wherein the footbed system comprises a second configuration without the removeable foot support (i.e. when 60 is removed from 30); wherein a shoe (10) into which the footbed system is placed accommodates a larger foot girth in the second configuration than in the first configuration due to the height added by the removeable foot support in the first configuration (as seen in Fig.1; para.53 & 64-65). Byrne does not disclose a bumper extending from a forward edge of the base of the removeable foot support to define an interior side wall of the bumper that extends vertically from the base, the bumper having a thickness and a height. However, Levy teaches a footbed (16,17) with a removable foot support (10) comprising a bumper (11) extending from a forward edge of the base of the removeable foot support to define an interior side wall (i.e. interior surface of 11 facing user’s toes) of the bumper that extends vertically from the base, the bumper having a thickness and a height (as seen in Fig.1 & 4).
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 removeable foot support of Byrne to have a bumper, as taught by Levy, in order to provide a foot support that delivers increased protection to a user's toes for enhanced comfort during use. When in combination, Byrne and Levy teach wherein the shoe accommodates a larger foot length in the second configuration than in the first configuration due to the thickness added by the bumper in the first configuration.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Byrne discloses a footbed system of claim 1, wherein the removable foot support is configured to be positioned adjacent and overlying an upper surface of the footbed (Byrne: Fig.1 & 2 and Levy: Fig.1 & 4; i.e. 11 of Levy overlies an upper surface of the footbed).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Byrne further discloses a footbed system of claim 1, wherein the removable foot support (60) is configured to be positioned adjacent and underlying a lower surface (34) of the footbed (30) and the bumper is configured to extend from below the footbed to above the footbed (Byrne: Fig.1 & 2 and Levy: Fig.1 & 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Byrne discloses a footbed system of claim 1, wherein the removable foot support (60) is coupled to the footbed (30) with one of peel off adhesion and hook and loop fasteners (45/74; para.69-70, as seen in Fig.3).
Regarding Claim 5, Byrne discloses a footbed system of claim 1, wherein the removeable foot support (60) is tapered at or toward a rearward edge of the removeable foot support (i.e. second & third 60 from 30 in Fig.6 taper toward a rear edge) to create a smooth transition between the removeable foot support and the footbed to facilitate underfoot comfort (as seen in Fig.4 & 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Levy further teaches a footbed system of claim 1, wherein the bumper has a bumper height greater than a height of the footbed (as seen in Fig.1 & 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Byrne discloses a kit for adjusting the size or fit of a shoe comprising: a footbed (30); a removeable foot support (60); and an alternate removeable foot support (second 60); wherein the footbed system comprises a second configuration with the alternate removeable foot support having a portion of the alternate removeable foot support position vertically lower than the footbed (as seen in Fig.6); wherein a shoe (10) into which the footbed system is placed has a different size or fit in the second configuration than in the first configuration (as seen in Fig.1; para.53 & 64-65); and wherein the removeable foot support is tapered at or toward a rearward edge of the removeable foot support (i.e. second & third 60 from 30 in Fig.6 taper toward a rear edge) to create a smooth transition between the removeable foot support and the footbed (as seen in Fig.4 & 6). Byrne does not disclose the removeable foot support further comprising a bumper; wherein a footbed system comprises a first configuration with the removeable foot support positioned above the footbed. However, Levy teaches a footbed (16,17) with a removable foot support (10) comprising a bumper (11), wherein a footbed system comprises a first configuration with the removeable foot support positioned above the footbed (i.e. 11 of Levy overlies an upper surface of the footbed) and the bumper positioned vertically higher than the footbed (as seen in Fig.1 & 4).
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 removeable foot support of Byrne to have a bumper, as taught by Levy, in order to provide a foot support that delivers increased protection to a user's toes for enhanced comfort during use. When in combination, Byrne and Levy teach an alternate removeable foot support comprising a second bumper and a portion of the second bumper positioned vertically higher than the footbed.
Regarding Claim 8, Byrne discloses a kit of claim 7, wherein the removable foot support is configured to be positioned adjacent and overlying an upper surface of the footbed (Byrne: Fig.1 & 2 and Levy: Fig.1 & 4; i.e. 11 of Levy overlies an upper surface of the footbed).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Byrne further discloses a kit of claim 7, wherein the removable foot support (60) is configured to be positioned adjacent and underlying a lower surface (34) of the footbed (30) and the bumper is configured to extend from below the footbed to above the footbed (Byrne: Fig.1 & 2 and Levy: Fig.1 & 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Byrne discloses a kit of claim 7, wherein the removable foot support (60) is coupled to the footbed (30) with one of peel off adhesion and hook and loop fasteners (45/74; para.69-70, as seen in Fig.3).
Regarding Claim 12, Levy further teaches a kit of claim 7, wherein the bumper has a bumper height greater than a height of the footbed (as seen in Fig.1 & 4).
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