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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 08/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 and 13-25 are presented.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are presented in independent form and are amended.
The present Office action treats claims 1-11 and 13-25 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 08/14/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see p. 5-11 of the reply of 08/14/2026): Applicant’s arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 on which it depends insofar as claim 1 recites the recess in which the carbon fiber plate is disposed.
Claims 4-9 are rejected if only because they depend from a rejected claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Dunning, US 2023/0144343, newly cited].
Regarding claim 20:
Dunning discloses (Figs. 9-12):
A training shoe 300 comprising:
a bottom sole 312b, 314 (i.e. the combined 312b and 314);
a midsole 312a disposed above at least a portion of the bottom sole;
one or more panels 302 attached to (para 79; Fig. 10) one or both of the midsole and the bottom sole to define an enclosure for a person's foot (Fig. 10); and
a carbon fiber (“carbon fiber”; para 69) plate 370 disposed directly between the bottom sole and the midsole in a recess (para 83; Fig. 10) defined in a bottom surface of the midsole (para 83; Fig. 10), the recess being shaped correspondingly to an outer perimeter of the carbon fiber plate (as in Fig. 10), and a thickness of the carbon fiber plate matching a depth of the recess so that an underside of the carbon fiber plate is flush with an underside of the midsole (Fig. 10), the carbon fiber plate defining a plurality of fingers 372 that extend forward in a longitudinal direction of the training shoe, the plurality of fingers including three (“plurality of tines 372, i.e., three”; para 83; Figs. 9-10 and 12) or more fingers to promote medial-lateral flexibility of the carbon fiber plate (medial-lateral flexibility is promoted by the absence of carbon fiber material provided between the fingers such that medial-lateral flexibility of the plate 370 is greater than that of a plate which has no such fingers).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343].
Regarding claim 23:
Dunning discloses The training shoe of claim 20, as set forth above.
Dunning Figs. 9-12 does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of fingers includes four or more fingers.
However and in further view of Dunning:
Dunning Figs. 7-8 teaches a carbon fiber plate 270 comprising four fingers 276, 278, 280, 282.
Dunning further teaches “the sole structure...provide increased support when angled to contact the ground on a lateral or medial periphery, and at the same time, provide increased cushioning when the sole structure 204 contacts the ground when it is not angled with respect to the ground” (para 78).
It 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 to have modified the training shoe of Dunning such that its plurality of fingers includes four fingers in order to provide increase support when angled to contact the ground on a lateral or medial periphery and/or to provide increased cushioning when not angled with respect to the ground, as taught by Dunning (para 78).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343] in view of [Lee, US 2019/0375921, previously cited] and [Yoon, KR-100662726-B1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 25:
Dunning discloses The training shoe of claim 20, as set forth above.
Dunning does not expressly disclose wherein the carbon fiber plate is visible through the bottom sole.
Regarding visibility through element 314 of the bottom sole of Dunning: Lee teaches a “rubber composition for a shoe sole that...is excellent in transparency and wear resistance” (para 2).
Lee further teaches “shoes using shoe soles made of transparent rubbers have been popularized. In such a shoes product,...designs are...on a shoe insole and a transparent rubber is used for a shoe outsole, which make the shoes product attractive...and see-through” (para 3).
Regarding visibility through element 312b of the bottom sole of Dunning: Dunning is silent as to whether there is any visibility though element 312b of Dunning: Dunning describes element 312b as a “midsole layer” (para 80 of Dunning).
Yoon teaches a “midsole which is excellent in transparency” (Abstract) wherein “transparent material” is “important as a means for imparting fashion to sports shoes because visual differentiation is possible” (p. 2 lines 26-27).
It 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 to have modified the training shoe of Dunning such that its element 312b is transparent and further such that its element 314 is transparent such that the carbon fiber plate is visible through the bottom sole in order to permit the visibility of the carbon fiber plate therethrough to make the shoe attractive and/or to provide it with a see-through design, as taught by Lee (para 3).
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343, newly cited] in view of [Lee, US 2019/0375921, previously cited] and [Yoon, KR-100662726-B1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Dunning discloses (Figs. 9-12):
A training shoe 300 comprising:
a bottom sole 314;
a midsole 312a disposed above at least a portion of the bottom sole;
one or more panels 302 attached to (para 79; Fig. 10) one or both of the midsole and the bottom sole to define an enclosure for a person's foot (Fig. 10); and
a carbon fiber (“carbon fiber”; para 69) plate 370 disposed between the bottom sole and the midsole in a recess (para 83; Fig. 10) defined in a bottom surface of the midsole (para 83; Fig. 10), the recess being shaped correspondingly to an outer perimeter of the carbon fiber plate (as in Fig. 10), and a thickness of the carbon fiber plate matching a depth of the recess so that an underside of the carbon fiber plate is flush with an underside of the midsole (Fig. 10), the carbon fiber plate defining a plurality of fingers 372 that extend forward in a longitudinal direction of the training shoe, the plurality of fingers including three (“plurality of tines 372, i.e., three”; para 83; Figs. 9-10 and 12) or more fingers to promote medial-lateral flexibility of the carbon fiber plate (medial-lateral flexibility is promoted by the absence of carbon fiber material provided between the fingers such that medial-lateral flexibility of the plate 370 is greater than that of a plate which has no such fingers);
Dunning does not expressly disclose wherein the bottom sole comprises a transparent rubber such that the carbon fiber plate is visible through the bottom sole.
However, Lee teaches a “rubber composition for a shoe sole that...is excellent in transparency and wear resistance” (para 2).
Lee further teaches “shoes using shoe soles made of transparent rubbers have been popularized. In such a shoes product,...designs are...on a shoe insole and a transparent rubber is used for a shoe outsole, which make the shoes product attractive...and see-through” (para 3).
Attention is drawn to Dunning Fig. 10 wherein it is noted element 312b is provided between plate and bottom sole. Dunning is silent as to whether there is any visibility though element 312b of Dunning: Dunning describes element 312b as a “midsole layer” (para 80 of Dunning).
Yoon teaches a “midsole which is excellent in transparency” (Abstract) wherein “transparent material” is “important as a means for imparting fashion to sports shoes because visual differentiation is possible” (p. 2 lines 26-27).
It 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 to have modified the training shoe of Dunning such that its layer 312b is transparent and further such that the bottom sole comprises a transparent rubber such that the carbon fiber plate is visible through the bottom sole in order to permit the visibility of the carbon fiber plate therethrough to make the shoe attractive and/or to provide it with a see-through design, as taught by Lee (para 3).
Regarding claim 2:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Dunning further discloses wherein a width of the carbon fiber plate varies in the longitudinal direction of the training shoe (Fig. 12) and reaches a maximum at a longitudinal position underneath a front portion of the midsole corresponding to the person's forefoot (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Dunning further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the midsole defines a recess in which the carbon fiber plate is disposed (see above treatment of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Dunning further discloses wherein the recess defines a plurality of fingers corresponding to the plurality of fingers of the carbon fiber plate (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Dunning further discloses wherein an outermost pair of the plurality of fingers curve inward as they extend forward in the longitudinal direction of the training shoe (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 21:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Dunning Figs. 9-12 does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of fingers includes four or more fingers.
However and in further view of Dunning:
Dunning Figs. 7-8 teaches a carbon fiber plate 270 comprising four fingers 276, 278, 280, 282.
Dunning further teaches “the sole structure...provide increased support when angled to contact the ground on a lateral or medial periphery, and at the same time, provide increased cushioning when the sole structure 204 contacts the ground when it is not angled with respect to the ground” (para 78).
It 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 to have modified the modified Dunning such that its plurality of fingers includes four fingers in order to provide increase support when angled to contact the ground on a lateral or medial periphery and/or to provide increased cushioning when not angled with respect to the ground, as taught by Dunning (para 78).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343], [Lee, US 2019/0375921], and [Yoon, KR-100662726-B1] as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of [Liebeno, US 2015/0223563, previously cited].
Regarding claim 5:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Dunning further discloses wherein the midsole comprises a first material in a front portion of the midsole corresponding to the person's forefoot, the recess being formed in the first material (Figs. 9-12).
Dunning does not expressly disclose the midsole comprising a first material in a front portion of the midsole corresponding to the person’s forefoot and a firmer second material in a rear portion of the midsole corresponding to the person’s heel.
However, Liebeno teaches (Figs. 6-7) a midsole 600 (i.e. “midsole 600”; para 55) comprising a first material (the material within region 610) in a front portion of the midsole corresponding to the person’s forefoot (“toe, or ball of the foot, portion”; para 55; Figs. 6-7) and a firmer second material (the material within region 620; having “high degree of firmness 730” (para 55) which is higher than that of first material as is evidenced in Fig. 7 in comparing degree of firmness 730 to degree of firmness of 710 of the first material (para 55; Fig. 7)) in a rear portion of the midsole corresponding to the person’s heel (“heel portion...region...620”; para 55).
Liebeno further teaches that a “high degree of firmness provides greater support and may be precisely located on the midsole...based on a customer’s specifications” (para 55).
It 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 to have modified the modified Dunning such that its midsole comprises the first material in a front portion of the midsole corresponding to the person’s forefoot and a firmer second material in a rear portion of the midsole corresponding to the person’s heel, in order to provide greater support at the heel region of the midsole than the forefoot region of the midsole in accordance with some users’ preferences, as suggested by Liebeno (para 55).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343], [Lee, US 2019/0375921], [Yoon, KR-100662726-B1], and [Liebeno, US 2015/0223563] as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of [Gheorghian, US 2017/0231322, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Dunning in view of Lee, Yoon, and Liebeno teach The training shoe of claim 5, as set forth above.
Dunning does not expressly disclose wherein the first material comprises a thermoplastic elastomer.
However, Gheorghian teaches a midsole material that comprises a polyether block amide thermoplastic elastomer (“thermoplastic elastomer (e.g., polyether block amide)”; para 18). Gheorghian further teaches “the midsole portion 25 formed from a material that provides cushioning and absorbs/attenuates impact force during normal wear and/or athletic training or performance” (para 18).
It 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 to have modified the modified Dunning such that its first material comprises a polyether block amide thermoplastic elastomer in order to provide cushioning, and/or absorb/attenuate impact force during normal wear and/or athletic training or performance, as taught by Gheorghain (para 18).
Regarding claim 7:
Dunning in view of Lee, Yoon, Liebeno, and Gheorghain teach The training shoe of claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Dunning as applied to claim 6 further meets the limitation wherein the thermoplastic elastomer comprises polyether block amide (refer to above treatment of claim 6 wherein the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343], [Lee, US 2019/0375921], [Yoon, KR-100662726-B1], and [Liebeno, US 2015/0223563] as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of [Turner, US 4,364,188, previously cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Dunning in view of Lee, Yoon, and Liebeno teach The training shoe of claim 5, as set forth above.
Dunning does not expressly disclose wherein the second material comprises a closed-cell foam.
However, Turner teaches a midsole material comprising a closed-cell foam comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate (“foamed closed cell resilient ethylene-vinyl, acetate copolymer forms a particularly effective midsole since it provides a good combination of flexibility, shock absorption, cushioning and longevity”; col. 3 lines 51-54).
It 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 to have modified the modified Dunning such that its second material comprises a closed-cell foam comprising ethyene-vinyl aceate in order to provide a flexibility, shock absorption, cushioning, longevity, and/or a combination of flexibility, shock absorption, cushioning, and longevity to the midsole, as taught by Turner (col. 3 lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 9:
Dunning in view of Lee, Yoon, Liebeno, and Turner teach The training shoe of claim 8, as set forth above.
The modified Dunning as applied to claim 8 further meets the limitation wherein the closed-cell foam comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate (refer to above treatment of claim 8 wherein the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Dunning, US 2023/0144343], [Lee, US 2019/0375921], and [Yoon, KR-100662726-B1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Kittner, US 2006/0248752, previously cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Dunning in view of Lee and Yoon teach The training shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Dunning does not expressly disclose further comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) sidewall disposed on at least a portion of the midsole and at least a portion of the one or more panels so as to define part of an external surface of the training shoe.
However, Kittner teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane (“thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU")”; para 34) sidewall 20 (i.e. “heel counter 20”) configured to be disposed on a portion of a midsole and a portion of a panel so as to define part of an external surface of a shoe (configured to be “sandwiched between the upper and an outsole” and accordingly configured to be sandwiched between a panel and a midsole; “heel counter attached to the exterior surface of the heel” of an upper wherein heel counter 20 defines part of an external surface of a shoe as evidenced in Figs. 1 and 4).
Kittner further teaches the TPU sidewall “provides added rigidity and support which aids users during periods of physical activity, especially those activities involving quick movements and directional changes” (para 32).
It 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 to have modified the modified Dunning such that it is provided with a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) sidewall disposed on at least a portion of the midsole and at least a portion of the one or more panels so as to define part of an external surface of the training shoe in order to provide rigidity and/or support for the purpose of aiding users during periods of physical activity especially those involving quick movements and directional changes, as taught by Kittner (para 32).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perron, US 2005/0160630, newly cited] in view of [Takeshi, JP-2004194935-A, newly cited] and [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633, newly cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Perron discloses (Fig. 13):
A training shoe 1 comprising:
a bottom sole 5;
a midsole 6 disposed above at least a portion of the bottom sole;
one or more panels 2 attached to (Fig. 13) one or both of the midsole and the bottom sole to define an enclosure for the person's foot (Fig. 13); and
a carbon fiber (“graphite and carbon...graphite fibers”; para 32; it is noted graphite fibers are carbon fibers as evidenced in extrinsic reference [Toyama, US 4,231,169], which states “inorganic fibers such as carbon fibers (including graphite fibers”; see col. 2 lines 32-33 of extrinsic reference Toyama) plate 7 disposed directly between the bottom sole and the midsole (Fig. 13).
Perron Fig. 13 does not expressly disclose the carbon fiber plate 7 disposed directly between the bottom sole and the front portion of the midsole.
Perron Fig. 13 does not expressly disclose the carbon fiber plate defining a plurality of fingers that extend forward in a longitudinal direction of the training shoe, the plurality of fingers including three or more fingers to promote medial-lateral flexibility of the carbon fiber plate.
However and in further view of Peron:
Perron Fig. 13 is silent as to the precise arrangement of the shoe in every portion thereof insofar as Perron Fig. 13 is a “cross section” (para 55).
Perron Fig. 6 teaches a carbon fiber plate 37 provided in a front portion of a midsole 10, the carbon fiber plate defining a plurality of fingers (Fig. 6) that extend forward in a longitudinal direction of a sole for a training shoe, the plurality of fingers including three or more fingers (Fig. 6, wherein it is noted there are three fingers extending forward in the longitudinal direction in Fig. 6) to promote medial-lateral flexibility of the carbon fiber plate (medial-lateral flexibility is promoted by the absence of carbon fiber material provided between the fingers such that medial-lateral flexibility of the plate 37 is greater than that of a plate which has no such fingers).
Perron further teaches the carbon fiber plate 37 of Fig. 6 is an “alternative embodiment[] of the present invention” (para 42).
It 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 to have modified the training shoe of Fig. 13 such that its carbon fiber plate is disposed directly between the bottom sole and the front portion of the midsole and such that the carbon fiber plate defining a plurality of fingers that extend forward in a longitudinal direction of the training shoe, the plurality of fingers including three or more fingers to promote medial-lateral flexibility of the carbon fiber plate in order to yield a performance enhancing soccer shoe as described in para 34. A person of ordinary skill would have expected success in combining the features of the embodiment of Fig. 13 and the embodiment of Fig. 6 insofar as Perron teaches each is “an embodiment” of the invention, wherein “FIG. 13 is...showing component 7...(or any other component shown in FIGS. 2-10)” (para 55).
Perron does not expressly disclose the midsole comprising a first material defining a front portion of the midsole corresponding to a person's forefoot and a firmer second material defining a rear portion of the midsole corresponding to the person's heel.
However, Takeshi teaches (Fig. 5) a training shoe 3 comprising a bottom sole 20; a midsole 4 disposed above at least a portion of the bottom sole; one or more panels 30, 31 attached to one or both of the midsole and the bottom sole to define an enclosure for a person’s foot; and a plate 5 disposed between the bottom sole and the midsole (Fig. 5).
As embodied in Fig. 7, Takeshi further teaches a midsole 32A, 32B (i.e. the combined 32A and 32B) comprising a first material (of 32A) defining a front portion of the midsole (“corresponding to the front foot F of the shoe”; para 61; Fig. 7) and a second material (of 32B) defining a rear portion of the midsole corresponding to a person’s heel (“corresponding to the rear foot R of the shoe”; para 61; Fig. 7) wherein “by using members having different rigidity for the first and second bottom surfaces 32 A, 32 B, the rigidity between the front foot section and the rear foot section...can be easily different” (para 62). Takeshi accordingly teaches one material firmer than the other insofar as the term “firm” means “not soft or yielding to a touch or pressure; rigid”; firm. (n.d.) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014). Retrieved September 15 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/firm).
Takeshi Fig. 7 does not expressly teach which material is firmer than the other. However, a person of ordinary skill looking to Takeshi Fig. 7 would have recognized that the “different rigidity” taught by Takeshi could be achieved if either: first material is firmer than second material or second material is firmer than first material.
Nevertheless, Hopkins teaches a sole structure (title) wherein “A firmer heel and softer forefoot could allow a forefoot to compress a sole structure more in the forefoot region, creating a higher heel offset feel” (para 68).
Takeshi and Hopkins are combinable in that each is directed to relative firmness of forefoot and heel portions of a sole structure.
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that its midsole is comprising a first material defining a front portion of the midsole corresponding to a person's forefoot and a firmer second material defining a rear portion of the midsole corresponding to the person's heel in order to provide a high heel offset feel to the shoe, as suggested by Hopkins (para 68).
Regarding claim 14:
Perron in view of Takeshi and Hopkins teach The training shoe of claim 13, as set forth above.
Perron Fig. 13 further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the midsole defines a recess in which the carbon fiber plate is disposed (Fig. 13).
Perron Fig. 13 does not expressly disclose wherein a bottom surface of the front portion of the midsole defines a recess in which the carbon fiber plate is disposed.
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that a bottom surface of the front portion of the midsole defines a recess in which the carbon fiber plate is disposed in order to yield the predictable result of a combined midsole and plate wherein the plate is secured within the recess in the front portion of the midsole in the same way that the plate is secured within the recess as shown in Fig. 13.
Regarding claim 15:
Perron in view of Takeshi and Hopkins teach The training shoe of claim 14, as set forth above.
Perron Fig. 13 further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the midsole defines a recess in which the carbon fiber plate is disposed (Fig. 13).
Perron Fig. 13 does not expressly disclose wherein the recess defines a plurality of fingers corresponding to the plurality of fingers of the carbon fiber plate.
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that wherein the recess defines a plurality of fingers corresponding to the plurality of fingers of the carbon fiber plate in order to yield the predictable result of a combined midsole and plate wherein the plate fingers are secured within recess fingers in the same way that the plate is secured within the recess as shown in Fig. 13.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perron, US 2005/0160630], [Takeshi, JP-2004194935-A], and [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633] as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of [Gheorghian, US 2017/0231322, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Perron in view of Takeshi and Hopkins teach The training shoe of claim 13, as set forth above.
Perron does not expressly disclose wherein the first material comprises a thermoplastic elastomer.
Gheorghian teaches a midsole material that comprises a polyether block amide thermoplastic elastomer (“thermoplastic elastomer (e.g., polyether block amide)”; para 18).
Gheorghian further teaches “the midsole portion 25 formed from a material that provides cushioning and absorbs/attenuates impact force during normal wearer and/or athletic training or performance” (para 18).
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that the first material comprises a polyether block amide thermoplastic elastomer in order to provide cushioning and/or absorb/attenuate impact force during normal wear and/or athletic training or performance, as taught by Gheorghian (para 18).
Regarding claim 17:
Sato in view of Gheorghian teaches The training shoe of claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Sato further meets the limitation wherein the thermoplastic elastomer comprises polyether block amide (see above treatment of claim 16 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perron, US 2005/0160630], [Takeshi, JP-2004194935-A], and [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633] as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of [Turner, US 4,364,188, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Perron in view of Takeshi and Hopkins teaches The training shoe of claim 13, as set forth above.
Perron does not expressly disclose wherein the second material comprises a closed-cell foam.
However, Turner teaches a midsole material comprising a closed-cell foam comprising ethylene vinyl acetate (“foamed closed cell...ethylene-vinyl, acetate copolymer...provides a good combination of flexibility, shock absorption, cushioning, and longevity”; col. 3 lines 51-54).
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that the second material comprises a closed-cell foam comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate in order to provide flexibility, shock absorption, cushioning, longevity, and or a combination of flexibility, shock absorption, cushioning and longevity to the midsole, as taught by Turner (col. 3 lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 19:
Perron in view of Takeshi, Hopkins, and Turner teaches The training shoe of claim 18, as set forth above.
The modified Perron further meets the limitation wherein the closed-cell foam comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate (see above treatment of claim 18 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perron, US 2005/0160630], [Takeshi, JP-2004194935-A], and [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633] as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of [Lim, KR-200462766-Y1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 22:
Perron in view of Takeshi and Hopkins teaches The training shoe of claim 13, as set forth above.
Perron does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of fingers includes four or more fingers.
However, Lim teaches (Fig. 5b) a plate 1 “for shoe soles” configured to “stably support[] the wearer’s foot” (Abstract) comprising a plurality of fingers 30 includes four or more (Fig. 5b) fingers 30.
Lim further teaches the “plurality of” fingers “30 are configured on both sides...the foot of the wearer can be more balanced to be able to walk comfortably” (p. 5 lines 21-27).
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that the plurality of fingers includes four or more fingers. In order to promote balance and/or comfort, as suggested by Lim (p. 5 lines 21-27).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perron, US 2005/0160630], [Takeshi, JP-2004194935-A], and [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633] as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of [Lee, US 2019/0375921, previously cited].
Regarding claim 24:
Sato discloses The training shoe of claim 13, as set forth above.
Sato does not expressly disclose wherein the carbon fiber plate is visible through the bottom sole.
However, Lee teaches a “rubber composition for a shoe sole that...is excellent in transparency and wear resistance” (para 2).
Lee further teaches “shoes using shoe soles made of transparent rubbers have been popularized. In such a shoes product,...designs are...on a shoe insole and a transparent rubber is used for a shoe outsole, which make the shoes product attractive...and see-through” (para 3).
It 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 to have modified the modified Perron such that the bottom sole comprises a transparent rubber such that the carbon fiber plate is visible through the bottom sole in order to permit the visibility of the carbon fiber plate therethrough to make the shoe attractive and/or to provide it with a see-through design, as taught by Lee (para 3).
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights