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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigerre et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0279715, herein after Pigerre) in view Logan (US 8,677,629).
With respect to claim 1, Pigerre discloses a shoe (footwear device 1, see figures 1 & 5) including an attached blade (rigid metal finger 4, see figures 1, 3 & 5-7), comprising:
a shoe (footwear device 1);
a blade (rigid metal finger 4, see figures 1, 3 & 5-7) protruding from a front portion of the shoe (see figures 1 & 5);
wherein the blade is fixed to the front surface of the shoe (finger 4 is fixedly attached to the core 5 of the sole 3).
Pigerre as described above discloses all the limitations of the claims except a cover selectively attached to the blade, the cover to provide a safety device to enable to the selective concealment and exposure of the blade.
Logan discloses it is old and conventional to provide a cover selectively attached to the blade, the cover (guard 40) to provide a safety device to enable to the selective concealment and exposure of the blade (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cover to the blade of Pigerre as taught by Logan to shield the blade by concealing the blade.
With respect to the blade being bonded adhesively to the front surface of the shoe, Pigerre discloses the blade/finger can be mounted by any fixing method the sole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the blade to the front surface of the shoe, since Pigerre discloses the blade/finger can be mounted by any fixing method the sole. With respect to the fixing means whether the fixing means is a screw, adhesive or any other art recognized equivalent is an obvious matter of design choice, such as cost of manufacturing.
With respect to claim 2, Logan discloses a blade that is a diamond-shaped blade (see figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the blade of Pigerre/Logan diamond-shaped as taught by Logan, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 3, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the blade includes a front portion (see figures 1 and 5-7).
With respect to claim 4, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the front portion is comprised of a first cutting edge, a second cutting edge, and a tip (Logan discloses a diamond-shape blade, see figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 5, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the blade includes a back portion (support 30, see figures 5-7), the back portion having a larger surface area than the front portion (finger 4) to increase the surface area over which the blade is bonded to the bottom surface of the shoe (see figures 5-7).
With respect to claim 6, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the cover is comprised of an outer surface and an interior (see figures 2 & 4 of Logan).
With respect to claim 7, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the interior forms a friction fit with the blade to secure the cover to the blade (Logan discloses as further illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the guard 40 may include guard sidewalls 45, 47 connected to a guard top 43. The guard sidewalls 45, 47 may include a lower sidewall portion 44, which may be positioned to cover the lower blade portion 34 of the blade 30 when the guard is in the closed position).
With respect to claim 8, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the outer surface includes a smooth edge to protect from unwanted contact with the first cutting edge, the second cutting edge, and the tip of the blade (Logan discloses as further illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the guard 40 may include guard sidewalls 45, 47 connected to a guard top 43. The guard sidewalls 45, 47 may include a lower sidewall portion 44, which may be positioned to cover the lower blade portion 34 of the blade 30 when the guard is in the closed position) .
With respect to claim 9, Pigerre/Logan discloses a self-defense system (Applicant is claiming the device alone and not equipment or supplies. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See Ex Parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647), comprising:
a shoe (a footwear device 1, see figures 1 & 5);
a blade (rigid metal finger 2, see figures 1 & 5-7) protruding from a front portion of the shoe;
an adhesive can be used to bond a bent portion of the blade to the front surface of the shoe. Pigerre discloses the blade/finger can be mounted by any fixing method the sole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the blade to the front surface of the shoe, since Pigerre discloses the blade/finger can be mounted by any fixing method the sole. With respect to the fixing means whether the fixing means is a screw, adhesive or any other art recognized equivalent is an obvious matter of design choice, such as cost of manufacturing; and
a cover can be selectively attached to the blade, the cover will provide a safety device to enable to the selective concealment and exposure of the blade. Logan discloses it is old and conventional to provide a cover selectively attached to the blade, the cover (guard 40) to provide a safety device to enable to the selective concealment and exposure of the blade (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cover to the blade of Pigerre as taught by Logan to shield the blade by concealing the blade.
With respect to claim 10, Logan discloses a blade that is a diamond-shaped blade 9see figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the blade of Pigerre/Logan diamond-shaped as taught by Logan, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 11, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the blade includes a front portion (see figures 1 and 5-7).
With respect to claim 12, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the front portion is comprised of a first cutting edge, a second cutting edge, and a tip (Logan discloses a diamond-shape blade, see figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 13, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the blade includes a back portion (support 30, see figures 5-7), the back portion having a larger surface area than the front portion (finger 4) to increase the surface area over which the blade is bonded to the bottom surface of the shoe (see figures 5-7).
With respect to claim 14, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the cover is comprised of an outer surface and an interior (see figures 2 & 4 of Logan).
With respect to claim 15, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the interior forms a friction fit with the blade to secure the cover to the blade (Logan discloses as further illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the guard 40 may include guard sidewalls 45, 47 connected to a guard top 43. The guard sidewalls 45, 47 may include a lower sidewall portion 44, which may be positioned to cover the lower blade portion 34 of the blade 30 when the guard is in the closed position).
With respect to claim 16, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the outer surface includes a smooth edge to protect from unwanted contact with the first cutting edge, the second cutting edge, and the tip of the blade (Logan discloses as further illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the guard 40 may include guard sidewalls 45, 47 connected to a guard top 43. The guard sidewalls 45, 47 may include a lower sidewall portion 44, which may be positioned to cover the lower blade portion 34
of the blade 30 when the guard is in the closed position.
With respect to claim 17, Pigerre/Logan discloses, wherein the blade appears to have a dimensioned having about a 1 1/8-inch width at the back portion (rigid finger can also be produced e.g. by means of a cylindrical steel rod, 3 to 10 mm in diameter and 10 to 30 mm in length) from a front portion of the shoe (see figures 1 & 5).
With respect to claim 18, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the blade is about 14-inch thick (rigid finger can also be produced e.g. by means of a cylindrical steel rod, 3 to 10 mm in diameter and 10 to 30 mm in length) from a front portion of the shoe (see figures 1 & 5).
With respect to claim 19, Pigerre/Logan discloses wherein the blade (4) enables the user to walk without discomfort (see figures 1 & 4).
With respect to claim 20, Pigerre/Logan discloses a shoe (footwear device 1, see figures 1 & 5) including an attached blade (finger 4, see figures 1 and 5-7), comprising:
a shoe (1);
a blade (rigid metal finger 4, see figures 1 and 5-7) that appears to protrude less than 2-inches (rigid finger can also be produced e.g. by means of a cylindrical steel rod, 3 to 10 mm in diameter and 10 to 30 mm in length) from a front portion of the shoe (see figures 1 & 5);
an adhesive to bond the blade to the bottom surface of the shoe, the adhesive to bond a top surface of the blade to a sole of the shoe. Pigerre discloses the blade/finger can be mounted by any fixing method the sole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the blade to the front surface of the shoe, since Pigerre discloses the blade/finger can be mounted by any fixing method the sole. With respect to the fixing means whether the fixing means is a screw, adhesive or any other art recognized equivalent is an obvious matter of design choice, such as cost of manufacturing; and
a cover including an interior to accept the blade via a friction-fit, the cover including an outer surface having a smooth edge. Logan discloses it is old and conventional to provide a cover selectively attached to the blade, the cover (guard 40) to provide a safety device to enable to the selective concealment and exposure of the blade (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cover to the blade of Pigerre as taught by Logan to shield the blade by concealing the blade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shown are a shoe with an attached blade analogous to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JILA M MOHANDESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4558. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs. 7:00-5:00 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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/JILA M MOHANDESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
JMM
01/22/2026