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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EasyCare (NPL – EasyCare Inc. Facebook Posts), hereinafter referred to as EasyCare.
Regarding claim 1:
EasyCare discloses a shoe comprising:
a platform having a proximal end, a distal end, an interior opening therebetween, and an outer circumference wherein the platform is shaped to receive the sole of a horse hoof (see annotated Figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
584
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the platform having a first lateral wall extending from the outer circumference, the first lateral wall having a distal cutout and a proximal cutout, and a second lateral wall extending from the outer circumference, the second lateral wall having a distal cutout and a proximal cutout (see annotated Figures below), wherein the distal cutouts of the first and second lateral walls extend inward, in a direction parallel to the outer circumference (see Figures), and wherein the first and second lateral walls are configured for adhesion to a horse hoof wall and the cutouts permit growth and flexibility of the horse hoof (functional language: inherently capable of allowing adhesion/growth/flexibility – see Figures).
PNG
media_image2.png
384
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
270
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
EasyCare discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the platform and the lateral walls are integrally molded (Product by Process limitation – see MPEP 2113 – no structural difference).
Regarding claim 4:
EasyCare discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the platform and lateral walls are joined with a heat-welded union (Product by Process limitation – see MPEP 2113 – no structural difference)
Regarding claim 5:
EasyCare discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the lateral walls define a plurality of holes (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
272
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchanan (US 20160044907, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Buchanan.
Regarding claim 10:
Buchanan discloses a shoe (overshoe 1, Fig 2) comprising:
a platform (base plate 2, Fig 2) having a proximal end (rear end portion - that closer to rear folding portion 6, Fig 2) and a distal end (front end portion – that opposite rear folding portion 6, Fig 2), wherein the platform is shaped to receive the sole and heel of a horse hoof (see Fig 1);
a lateral wall connected to a peripheral portion of the platform (see annotated Fig 1 below, and Fig 2 for connection) the lateral wall comprising a superior end and an inferior end opposite of the superior end, the inferior end being connected to the platform (see Fig 2), the superior end having a plurality of projections (see annotated Fig 2 below) defining a first passageway (passage through which securing member 24 passes, through loop formations 22), wherein the lateral wall comprises a distal cutout, the distal cutout extending inward in a direction parallel to the peripheral portion of the platform (see annotated Fig 7 below – the hinge 20 of the distal finger 4 of the lateral wall – per ¶0047, the hinges 20 are provided as “grooves, recesses or indentations”);
a cuff having a plurality of sloped projections (see annotated Fig 2 below) defining a second passageway (passage through which securing member 24 passes, through loop formations 22), the cuff projections being interconnected with the lateral wall projections (by securing member 24, see Fig 1); and
a pin is inserted through the first and second passageways, thereby laterally interlocking the cuff and the lateral wall (elongate securing member 24, Fig 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
411
410
media_image5.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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EasyCare, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ford (US 20140231101 A1, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Ford.
Regarding claim 2:
EasyCare discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
EasyCare fails to specifically disclose wherein the platform and lateral walls are formed from urethane.
Ford discloses a similar shoe wherein the platform and lateral walls are formed from urethane (¶0041).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shoe of EasyCare of urethane, as in Ford, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in EasyCare, Urethane is resilient, allows for the cyclical expansion and contraction of the hoof, and easy to manufacture items with, given its moldability (¶0041). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9:
EasyCare discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
EasyCare fails to specifically disclose wherein the proximal end of the shoe is formed from a shaveable material.
Ford discloses a similar shoe where the proximal end of the shoe is formed from a shaveable material (¶0041 – urethane, as the applicant’s invention).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shoe of EasyCare of urethane, as in Ford, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in EasyCare, Urethane is resilient, allows for the cyclical expansion and contraction of the hoof, and easy to manufacture items with, given its moldability (¶0041). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebbe (DE 3406733 A1, as cited on previous 892), in view of Barry (US 1131815 A, as cited on previous 892).
Regarding claim 11:
Stuebbe discloses a shoe (hoof shoe with fourth embodiment connection type, shown in Fig 6) comprising:
a platform (base of shoe, including plastic sole body 5) having a proximal end (front edge of shoe), a distal end (rear edge of shoe) and a skirt therebetween, the skirt forming a segmented arch and defining a void (per ¶0025, and as can be seen in the cross-sectional figures, the shoe base has a horseshoe shape; the skirt is considered the inner peripheral wall of the horseshoe shape, and the void is the space formed between the legs of the arch/horseshoe), wherein the platform is shaped to receive the sole and heel of a horse hoof (see hoof 1, Fig 2);
a first lateral wall having a proximal portion and a distal portion, the first lateral wall being connected to a peripheral portion of the platform (the first lateral wall is the outer wall 7 and the portion of plastic sole body 5 which extends upwards per ¶0029, with tabs 26, Fig 6, on the left side/leg of the shoe; proximal and distal portions are the portions of the wall closer to the proximal/distal sides of the shoe, respectively), the first lateral wall comprising:
an elongate proximal cutout in the proximal portion (see annotated Fig 6 below), wherein the cutout is configured to receive portions of a horse hoof and permit expansion and contraction of such a horse hoof (functional language, capable of functioning as such);
PNG
media_image6.png
309
388
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a superior end and an inferior end opposite of the superior end, the inferior end being connected to the platform (see Figs 1 and 6; ¶0046), the superior end having a plurality of projections (projections are tabs 26, Fig 6, those on the left side) defining a first passageway (first passageway is route through holes in the tabs of the first lateral wall, through which cord 28 is threaded, Fig 6)
a second lateral wall having a proximal portion and a distal portion, the second lateral wall being connected to a peripheral portion of the platform (the first lateral wall is the outer wall 7 and the portion of plastic sole body 5 which extends upwards per ¶0029, with tabs 26, Fig 6, on the right side/leg of the shoe; proximal and distal portions are the portions of the wall closer to the proximal/distal sides of the shoe, respectively), the second lateral wall comprising:
an elongate proximal cutout in the proximal portion (see annotated Fig 6 below), and wherein the cutout is configured to receive portions of a horse hoof and permit expansion and contraction of such a horse hoof (functional language, capable of functioning as such);
PNG
media_image6.png
309
388
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a superior end and an inferior end opposite of the superior end, the inferior end being connected to the platform (see Figs 1 and 6; ¶0046), the superior end having a plurality of projections (projections are tabs 26, Fig 6, those on the right side) defining a second passageway (second passageway is route through holes in the tabs of the second lateral wall, through which cord 28 is threaded, Fig 6).
Stuebbe fails to specifically disclose that each of the first and second lateral wall comprise an elongate distal cutout in the distal portion, wherein each elongate distal cutout extends inward, in a direction parallel to the peripheral portion of the platform, and wherein the distal cutouts are configured to receive portions of a horse hoof and permit expansion and contraction of such a horse hoof.
Barry discloses a horseshoe with lateral walls (flanges a’, Fig 2) which hug the outer wall of the horseshoe, permitting attachment, each lateral wall having an elongate distal cutout (cut away portion a2, Fig 1) which extends inward in a direction parallel to the peripheral portion of the shoe base (see Fig 1), and wherein the distal cutouts are configured to receive portions of a horse hoof and permit expansion and contraction of such a horse hoof (functional language: capable of receiving/permitting expansion – see Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an elongate distal cutout to each lateral wall, as in Barry, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Barry, horses frequently have deformed or abnormally developed feet, and cutting portions of the lateral walls away, as in the rear/distal portion at a2, all for the flanges to be readily shaped to conform to an irregular shaped hoof (Pg 2, lines 30-45), such cutouts may therefore increase the comfort of the shoe for the horse, based on their foot anatomy.
Regarding claim 12:
Stuebbe as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 above and further discloses that the shoe further comprises:
a first cuff (includes adhesive parts 27, Fig 6, on left side/leg of shoe) having a plurality of projections (see annotated Fig 6 below) defining a third passageway (third passageway is route through holes in the projections of the first cuff, through which cord 28 is threaded, Fig 6), the cuff projections interconnecting with the first lateral wall projections (see Fig 6);
PNG
media_image7.png
266
328
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a second cuff (includes adhesive parts 27, Fig 6, on right side/leg of shoe) having a plurality of projections (see annotated Fig 6 below) defining a fourth passageway (fourth passageway is route through holes in the projections of the second cuff, through which cord 28 is threaded, Fig 6), the second cuff projections interconnecting with the second lateral wall projections (see Fig 6);
PNG
media_image7.png
266
328
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a cord removably inserted through the first, second, third, and fourth passageways, thereby interlocking the first cuff and the first lateral wall (¶0046).
The embodiment of Stuebbe relied on above fails to specifically disclose:
a first pin removably inserted through the first and third passageways, thereby interlocking the first cuff and the first lateral wall; and
a second pin removably inserted through the second and fourth passageways, thereby interlocking the second cuff and the second lateral wall.
However, Stuebbe also contemplates the use of rods as an alternative securement method to a circumferential cord, in relation to another embodiment (¶0044).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided rods to connect the passageways of the cuffs and walls of the elected embodiment, as opposed to a cord, as contemplated by Stuebbe, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more durable connection mechanism, less prone to breaking or being cut accidentally. Further, the equivalence of rods and a cord in their ability to fasten elements together is known in the art, as evidenced by Stuebbe, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of a rod for a pin would have yielded the predictable results of continued fastening. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 the applicant asserts that Buchanan fails to disclose that the lateral wall comprises a distal cutout, the distal cutout extending inward, in a direction parallel to the peripheral portion of the platform.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, as in the rejection above, that the recessed/groove hinge of the distal finger of the lateral wall, as annotated below, may be considered a distal cutout as claimed, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
PNG
media_image5.png
411
410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all remaining pending claims submitted 04/10/2026 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
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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights