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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad (DE 3731905 A1, as cited on previous 892), in view of McDonnell (US 3603402, as cited on previous 892) and EasyCareVideos (NPL: YouTube, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Mustad, McDonnell, and EasyCareVideos, respectively.
Regarding claim 1:
Mustad discloses an equine shoe (claim 1) comprising:
a polymer upper forming a segmented arc (see annotated Fig 10 below; Pg 5; ¶2; forms an arc as it encapsulates a horseshoe shaped metal part, claim 1, see also Fig 1a, segmented in that it is broken up by exposed metal portions, Pg 5, last ¶); the upper having a top, a bottom, a proximal end, a distal end, and an outer periphery (see annotated Fig 10 below, proximal end is that near toe of horse, distal end is that near heel of horse); a cuff extending from the outer periphery (formed of tabs 2, Fig 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
364
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
339
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a metal lower (metal part, Fig 11) forming a segmented arc (claim 1; Fig 11), the metal lower having a plurality of fenestrations and cavities (openings 46, Fig 11), wherein the polymer upper is over molded to the metal lower (Pg 5, ¶2; see Fig 10; Product-by-Process limitation: see MPEP 2113, no non-obvious structural differences),
Mustad fails to specifically disclose a lateral ridge integrally formed with the metal lower, the lateral ridge extending continuously outward about an entire periphery of the segmented arc of the metal lower; and wherein the cuff includes a distal cutout opposite a proximal cutout, the distal cutout and proximal cutout each extending inward of the cuff in a direction parallel to the outer periphery.
McDonnell discloses a horseshoe with a lateral ridge (see annotated Fig 5 below), the lateral ridge extending about an entire periphery of an arc formed by the horseshoe (see Fig 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
196
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 changed the shape of the polymer portion of the shoe of Mustad, by adding a lateral ridge about the periphery of the shoe, as in McDonnell, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Mustad, this extending ridge portion may help guide tools or allow for better gripping of the shoe which can be helpful in removing a horseshoe (abstract; Col 2, lines 35-47). Further, providing a ridge extension of the shoe, extending from the point of removal to the ground, would create a larger horseshoe surface area touching the ground, and may allow for better traction. Moreover, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent, (Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23), and the applicant’s specification prescribes no criticality/benefits to the presence of a ridge.
The examiner notes that, given that the polymer upper and metal lower are integrally formed in Mustad (cast/molded together per Pg 5, ¶2), the addition of a lateral ridge to the polymer upper, as suggested by McDonnell, would result in the metal lower of Mustad being integrally formed with the ridge. Further, adding a ridge to the polymer upper structure of Mustad, around the periphery of the horseshoe, as in McDonnell, would result in the ridge extending continuously outward about an entire periphery of the segmented arc of the metal lower, given the positioning of the metal lower in the polymer upper shown in Fig 10 of Mustad.
EasyCareVideos discloses an equine shoe with cuffs for adhesive attachment of the shoe to a horse’s hoof, each cuff having a distal cutout opposite a proximal cutout, the distal cutout and proximal cutout each extending inward, in a direction parallel to the outer periphery of the shoe (see annotated screen captures below from timestamps: 3:23; 9:30; and 8:58).
PNG
media_image4.png
448
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
510
922
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
530
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 substituted the tabs of Mustad for cuffs with holes and cutouts in them for glue adhesion, as in EasyCareVideos, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide easier application of glue, and stronger, more long-lasting adhesion between the cuff and the hoof. Further, such a modification would amount to a substitution of functional equivalents, the modification being a simple substitution of one known glue-on hoof cuff element for another, and would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, McDonnell, and EasyCareVideos as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Burns (US 2012/0193107, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Burns.
Regarding claim 5:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the polymer upper is formed of plastic (claim 1).
Mustad fails to specifically disclose wherein the polymer upper is formed of urethane.
Burns discloses a molded horseshoe formed of urethane (¶0046)
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 chosen urethane, as in Burns, as the plastic of the polymer upper of Mustad, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Burns, Urethane is a resilient, flexible, and moldable material with sufficient density to prevent damage from over-flexing (¶0045-0046). 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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, McDonnell, EasyCareVideos and Burns, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Robertson (US 1441602, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Robertson.
Regarding claim 6:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the metal lower includes a top surface (see annotated Fig 10 below) in communication with the polymer upper (see Fig 10), and discloses that a portion of the metal lower is exposed in the tread (Pg 5, last ¶).
PNG
media_image7.png
315
272
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Mustad as modified fails to disclose wherein the metal lower includes a treaded surface wherein the treaded surface is configured to provide traction.
Robertson discloses a similar polymer/metal composite horseshoe, with a metal portion (metallic element 24, Fig 8) including a treaded surface (see annotated Fig 7 below, and Fig 9).
PNG
media_image8.png
382
611
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 modified the exposed surface of the metal portion in Mustad to be treaded, having grooves/protrusions, as in Robertson, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve traction, and ensure that a horse does not slip and hurt themselves on slippery ground.
Regarding claim 8:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 6 above and EasyCareVideos further discloses wherein the cuff includes a plurality of openings (see annotated screen capture below – Timestamp 9:30).
PNG
media_image9.png
464
738
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, McDonnell, EasyCareVideos, Burns, and Robertson, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Chamberlain (US 0510402, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Chamberlain.
Regarding claim 7:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the top surface is textured.
Chamberlain discloses a composite horseshoe formed of rubber and metal portions (A and B), wherein, the surface of the metal, on which the rubber is adhered, is textured (lines 50-65).
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 modified the top surface of Mustad (that being bonded with the plastic portion) to be textured, as in Chamberlain, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Chamberlain, providing the metal with texture helps promote the adhesion between the polymer and the metal.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad in view of EasyCareVideos, McDonnell, and Robertson.
Regarding claim 9:
Mustad discloses an equine shoe (claim 1) comprising:
a polymer upper portion (see annotated Fig 10 below; Pg 5; ¶2) forming a segmented arc (forms an arc as it encapsulates a horseshoe shaped metal part, claim 1, see also Fig 1a, segmented in that it is broken up by exposed metal portions, Pg 5, last ¶), defining an inner periphery and an outer periphery (see annotated Fig 1a below);
PNG
media_image1.png
364
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
235
503
media_image10.png
Greyscale
a cuff extending from the outer periphery (see tabs 2, Fig 1)
a metal lower portion (metal part 45, formed by 46, 42, and 43, Fig 10), the lower portion comprising a fenestration, a cavity, and a passageway between the fenestration and the cavity (see annotated Fig 10 below),
PNG
media_image11.png
249
377
media_image11.png
Greyscale
a portion of the polymer upper being disposed through each of the cavity and fenestration, wherein the upper is permanently secured to the lower portion (see Fig 10; Pg 5, ¶2).
Mustad fails to specifically disclose:
a first cuff extending from the outer periphery, the first cuff defining a distal cutout opposite a proximal cutout, wherein the distal cutout and the proximal cutout each extend inward, in a direction parallel to the outer periphery;
a lateral ridge integrally formed with the metal lower, the lateral ridge extending continuously outward about an entire periphery of the metal lower portion; and
wherein the metal lower portion comprises a treaded surface, (only comments that a part of the metal portion is exposed in the tread - Pg 5, last ¶).
EasyCareVideos discloses an equine shoe with cuffs for adhesive attachment of the shoe to a horse’s hoof, each cuff having a distal cutout opposite a proximal cutout, the distal cutout and proximal cutout each extending inward, in a direction parallel to the outer periphery of the shoe (see annotated screen captures below from timestamps: 3:23; 9:30; and 8:58).
PNG
media_image4.png
448
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
510
922
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
530
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 substituted the tabs of Mustad for cuffs with holes and cutouts in them for glue adhesion, as in EasyCareVideos, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide easier application of glue, and stronger, more long-lasting adhesion between the cuff and the hoof. Further, such a modification would amount to a substitution of functional equivalents, the modification being a simple substitution of one known glue-on hoof cuff element for another, and would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
McDonnell discloses a horseshoe with a lateral ridge (see annotated Fig 5 below), the lateral ridge extending about an entire periphery of an arc formed by the horseshoe (see Fig 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
196
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 changed the shape of the polymer portion of the shoe of Mustad, by adding a lateral ridge about the periphery of the shoe, as in McDonnell, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Mustad, this extending ridge portion may help guide tools or allow for better gripping of the shoe which can be helpful in removing a horseshoe (abstract; Col 2, lines 35-47). Further, providing a ridge extension of the shoe, extending from the point of removal to the ground, would create a larger horseshoe surface area touching the ground, and may allow for better traction. Moreover, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent, (Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23), and the applicant’s specification prescribes no criticality/benefits to the presence of a ridge.
The examiner notes that, given that the polymer upper and metal lower are integrally formed in Mustad (cast/molded together per Pg 5, ¶2), the addition of a lateral ridge to the polymer upper, as suggested by McDonnell, would result in the metal lower of Mustad being integrally formed with the ridge. Further, adding a ridge to the polymer upper structure of Mustad, around the periphery of the horseshoe, as in McDonnell, would result in the ridge extending continuously outward about an entire periphery of the segmented arc of the metal lower, given the positioning of the metal lower in the polymer upper shown in Fig 10 of Mustad.
Robertson discloses a similar polymer/metal composite horseshoe, with a metal portion (metallic element 24, Fig 8) including a treaded surface (see annotated Fig 7 below, and Fig 9).
PNG
media_image8.png
382
611
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 modified the exposed surface of the metal portion in Mustad to be treaded, having grooves/protrusions, as in Robertson, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve traction, and ensure that a horse does not slip and hurt themselves on slippery ground.
Regarding claim 10:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the metal lower portion is formed of aluminum (Pg 4, last ¶)
Regarding claim 11:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the metal lower portion is formed of steel (Pg 4, last ¶).
Regarding claim 12:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the metal part can be made of steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the metal lower is formed of titanium.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the metal part of titanium, the result having a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the desired strength, rigidity, and resilience for the horse the shoe is applied to/the landscape in which the shoe will be used, or in order to optimize material costs, since 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 13:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the metal part can be made of steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the metal lower is formed of magnesium.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the metal part of magnesium, the result having a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the desired strength, rigidity, and resilience for the horse the shoe is applied to/the landscape in which the shoe will be used, or in order to optimize material costs, since 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 14:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the metal part can be made of steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the metal lower is formed of copper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the metal part of copper, the result having a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the desired strength, rigidity, and resilience for the horse the shoe is applied to/the landscape in which the shoe will be used, or in order to optimize material costs, since 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 15:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and EasyCareVideos further discloses wherein the shoe further comprises a second cuff, the second cuff extending from the outer periphery and defining a second distal cutout and a second proximal cutout (see screen captures of EasyCareVideos annotated in rejection of claim 9 above and see 9:30 – two cuffs each with their own respective cutouts)
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, McDonnell, and EasyCareVideos, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tovim (US 4265314, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Tovim.
Regarding claim 16
Mustad as modified discloses the equine shoe of claim 1 above and further contemplates using adhesive for attachment of the shoe to the horse’s hoof, a tube of adhesive called “EasyShoe bond fast set adhesive” by EasyCare Inc. (see 2:52) being used for adhesion of the cuff of EasyCare Videos (the cuff which is used in the equine shoe of claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 above).
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose an equine shoe attachment kit having component parts capable of being assembled in the field, the kit comprising a combination of the equine shoe of claim 1; and a tube of cyanoacrylate adhesive.
Tovim discloses the use of a cyanoacrylate adhesive for attachment of an equine shoe (Col 2, lines 5-20).
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 specifically provided a cyanoacrylate adhesive for adhesion of the shoe of Mustad, as in Tovim, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Tovim, cyanoacrylate adhesives are proven to be useful with good flexural, impact, and gap filling properties, suitable for the large stresses imparted to a horse shoe when in use (Col 2, lines 5-20).
Regarding kit claim 16, in view of the structure disclosed by Mustad and Tovim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the equine shoe of claim 1 and the cyanoacrylate adhesive in a kit form for convenient access and purchase reasons, the result having a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17
Mustad as modified discloses the equine shoe attachment kit of claim 16 above.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the kit further comprises a plastic wrap for temporarily securing the equine shoe to an equine shoe.
However, EasyCareVideos further contemplates the use of plastic wrap in temporarily securing an equine shoe to a horse’s hoof, while waiting for adhesive to cure (3:00 – 3:40).
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 plastic wrap in the kit of Mustad, as suggested by EasyCareVideos, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because plastic wrap is useful in the attachment of a shoe to a horse’s hoof with adhesive, preventing unwanted adhesive transfer, and providing stability until the adhesive cures.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, McDonnell, EasyCareVideos, and Tovim, as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Ford.
Regarding claim 18
Mustad as modified discloses the equine shoe attachment kit of claim 17 above.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the kit further comprises a plurality of nails for nailing the metal lower to a horse hoof.
Ford contemplates alternatively gluing or nailing a horse shoe to a horse’s hoof, both attachment mechanisms providing essentially the same performance (¶0050).
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 modified the shoe of Mustad to include holes in the shoe for specific nailing attachment, and to have provided nails in the kit of Mustad, as suggested by Ford, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Ford, both nailing and gluing are known equivalents of shoe attachment with similar performance, and having both options allows the user freedom to follow his/her preferred method of installation of the shoe (¶0050).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad and EasyCareVideos.
Regarding claim 19:
Mustad discloses an equine shoe (claim 1) comprising:
a metal horse shoe (claim 1; metal part 45, Fig 11) having a top, a bottom, and an intermediate portion therebetween (see annotated Fig 10 below);
PNG
media_image12.png
388
520
media_image12.png
Greyscale
a plurality of cavities extending through the top (see annotated Fig 10 below, and Fig 11 for plurality);
a plurality of fenestrations extending through the intermediate portion (see annotated Fig 10 below, and Fig 11 for plurality); wherein at least one passageway connects a cavity to a fenestration (see annotated Fig 10 below);
PNG
media_image13.png
334
498
media_image13.png
Greyscale
a polymer upper (see annotated Fig 10 below) over molded to the top (Pg 5, ¶2; see Fig 10; Product-by-Process limitation: see MPEP 2113, no non-obvious structural differences), whereby a cuff is attached to the polymer upper (tabs 2, Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mustad fails to specifically disclose wherein the cuff defines a distal cutout opposite a proximal cutout, wherein the distal cutout and the proximal cutout each extend inward, in a direction parallel to the outer periphery.
EasyCareVideos discloses an equine shoe with cuffs for adhesive attachment of the shoe to a horse’s hoof, each cuff having a distal cutout opposite a proximal cutout, the distal cutout and proximal cutout each extending inward, in a direction parallel to the outer periphery of the shoe (see annotated screen captures below from timestamps: 3:23; 9:30; and 8:58).
PNG
media_image4.png
448
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
510
922
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
530
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 substituted the tabs of Mustad for cuffs with holes and cutouts in them for glue adhesion, as in EasyCareVideos, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide easier application of glue, and stronger, more long-lasting adhesion between the cuff and the hoof. Further, such a modification would amount to a substitution of functional equivalents, the modification being a simple substitution of one known glue-on hoof cuff element for another, and would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad and EasyCareVideos, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Robertson.
Regarding claim 20:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 above, and further comments that a part of the metal portion is exposed in the tread (Pg 5, last ¶).
Mustad fails to disclose wherein the shoe further comprises a treaded surface on the bottom.
Robertson discloses a similar polymer/metal composite horseshoe, with a metal portion (metallic element 24, Fig 8) including a treaded surface (see annotated Fig 7 below, and Fig 9).
PNG
media_image8.png
382
611
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 modified the exposed surface of the metal portion in Mustad to be treaded, having grooves/protrusions, as in Robertson, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve traction, and ensure that a horse does not slip and hurt themselves on slippery ground.
Regarding claim 23:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 19 above and EasyCareVideos further discloses a second cuff attached to the polymer upper (see screen captures of EasyCareVideos annotated in rejection of claim 19 above and see 9:30 – two cuffs each with their own respective cutouts).
Regarding claim 24:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23 above and further discloses wherein the second cuff includes a cutout (see proximal and distal cutouts, present on each cuff, in annotated screen captures in the rejection of claim 19 above).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, EasyCareVideos, and Robertson, as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Burns.
Regarding claim 25:
Mustad as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23 above.
Mustad as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the polymer upper is formed of a urethane having a durometer value between 80A and 90A.
Burns discloses a polymer shoe made of a urethane having a durometer value between 80A and 90A (¶0046).
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 chosen urethane, as in Burns, as the plastic of the polymer upper of Mustad, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Burns, Urethane is a resilient, flexible, and moldable material with sufficient density to prevent damage from over-flexing (¶0045-0046). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims 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, all arguments being directed to new amendments, a new ground of rejection being issued to address the new limitations.
Conclusion
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