Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed March 5, 2026 has been received, Claims 1-6 are currently pending, with Claims 4-5 remaining withdrawn from prosecution at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cretinon (US 6,000,148).
Regarding Claim 1, Cretinon discloses a footwear for sports or technical uses, which is assembled with preformed pieces, comprising: a tread (3); an upper (10); a midsole (5), wherein said midsole is configured to dampen impacts generated during walking and is arranged below said upper (Col.5, lines 14-20); and an integral shell (4,20) comprising an element of protection (20) against abrasions and impacts (Col.5, lines 7-11), the element configured to house said midsole and said upper of said footwear (as seen in Fig.1 & 2), said integral shell having a lower outer surface (i.e. bottom surface of 4) on which said tread (3) is fixed (Col.4, lines 60-63 & Col.5, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 2, Cretinon discloses a footwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein said tread (3) comprises rubber or TPU (Col.1, lines 19-20 & Col.5, lines 4-6).
Regarding Claim 3, Cretinon discloses a footwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein said lower outer surface (i.e. bottom surface of 4) of said integral shell has a flat and uniform profile configured to ensure a quick positioning and assembling of said tread (3)(as seen in Fig.1-3; Col.4, lines 60-63 & Col.5, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 6, Cretinon discloses a footwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein said tread (3) is fixed on the lower outer surface (i.e. bottom surface of 4) by gluing (as seen in Fig.1-3; Col.4, lines 60-63 & Col.7, lines 41-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2. Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts Cretinon's assembly of a core layer (4) and a reinforcement element (20) does not form an "integral shell", much less "houses" an upper or a midsole in the manner claimed. Cretinon's structure is a stacked assembly, not a housing shell containing an upper or a midsole.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Integral structures 4 & 20 of Cretinon meet the claim limitation of an “integral shell”, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant. Further, as seen in Fig.1-2, shell (4,20) of Cretinon clearly “houses” the upper (10) and the midsole (5), as the upper and midsole fit into the void formed by 4,20. Applicant made no amendments to the claims in an attempt to distinguish over the prior art of record. For all of these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
3. Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts Cretinon's the bottom surface of the core layer (4), as is clearly shown in Figure 1, is contoured and shaped to mate with the complementary top surface of the wearable layer (3). This surface is not "flat and uniform." This contoured profile of Cretinon is essential to the proper mating and bonding of two specifically shaped surfaces, and is contrary to the purpose of the Applicant's invention, which provides a much more widely adaptable, flat interface for easy assembly and replacement. Therefore, Cretinon not only fails to disclose or suggest all features of claim 3, but also explicitly teaches away from the "flat and uniform profile" of the "lower outer surface" of the "integral shell" of claim 3.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s arguments are confusing as it is wholly unclear what structure Applicant is asserting to be a contoured profile of Cretinon. The bottom surface of 4 of Cretinon is undoubtedly “flat and uniform”, as seen in Fig.1 & 3, and has no contoured/shaped surface on the bottom surface as asserted by Applicant. Additionally, it is noted that the entire surface of Applicant’s bottom shell surface is not flat and uniform as there is an obvious contour in the heel region, as seen in Fig.3. For all of these reasons, Cretinon does not teach away from the claim limitations and Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights