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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s amendment in which claims 1 and 7 have been amended, claims 21-24 have been added, and claims 1-24 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-11, 13-20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meschter et al. (US 8,549,774), herein Meschter, in view of Long et al. (US 2011/0203137), herein Long.
Regarding claim 1, Meschter discloses a sole structure for a shoe, comprising: a forefoot portion (116); a heel portion (114); and a midfoot portion (120, 132) coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion. The midfoot portion comprises a first bending stiffness in a plantarflexion direction and a second bending stiffness in a dorsiflexion direction that is different from the first bending stiffness (column 7, lines 11-19, 42-63; column 8, lines 3-13; column 9, lines 52-63; Fig. 1, 4-6, 8-11).
Meschter does not disclose a medial arch and a lateral arch. Long teaches a sole structure for a shoe, comprising: a forefoot portion (103); a heel portion (104); and a midfoot portion (980) coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion, the midfoot portion comprising: a medial arch (926) comprising a medial forefoot arm extending toward the heel portion and a medial heel arm extending toward the forefoot portion, wherein the medial forefoot arm and the medial heel arm meet at a medial apex of the medial arch, and wherein the medial arch defines a medial void located between the medial forefoot arm and the medial heel arm, and a lateral arch (927) comprising a lateral forefoot arm extending toward the heel portion and a lateral heel arm extending toward the forefoot portion, wherein the lateral forefoot arm and the lateral heel arm meet at a lateral apex of the lateral arch, and wherein the lateral arch defines a lateral void located between the lateral forefoot arm and the lateral heel arm (paragraphs 0049, 0054-0059, 0083-0087; Fig. 9-10). The arches allow independent movement of the forefoot and heel portions while limiting stress on the arch of the foot, particularly when in an en pointe position (paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a medial arch and a lateral arch, as taught by Long, to the midfoot portion of Meschter in order to limit stress on the arch of the foot, particularly when in an en pointe position.
Regarding claim 2, Long appears to show the medial forefoot arm extends toward the heel portion at a first angle that is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees relative to a midfoot plane of the midfoot portion, wherein the medial heel arm extends toward the forefoot portion at a second angle that is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees relative to the midfoot plane, wherein the lateral forefoot arm extends toward the heel portion at a third angle that is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees relative to a midfoot plane, and wherein the lateral heel arm extends toward the forefoot portion at a fourth angle that is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees relative to the midfoot plane (Fig. 7), but does not explicitly disclose the angles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first, second, third, and fourth angles between 30 degrees and 85 degrees in order to provide sufficient support and strength to the midfoot. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Long appears to show that the medial and lateral radii of curvature are approximately constant (Fig. 7, 9), but does not explicitly discuss the radius of curvature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the medial and lateral radii of curvature approximately constant in order to provide strong support to bridge the gap between the forefoot portion and the heel portion.
Regarding claim 4, Long teaches that the medial radius of curvature and the lateral radius of curvature are approximately equal (paragraph 0055, lines 14-18; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Long teaches that the medial arch comprises at least one medial lace aperture (991-993) extending through the medial arch, and the lateral arch comprises at least one lateral lace aperture (994-996) extending through the lateral arch (paragraph 0087; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Long teaches that each of the medial arch and the lateral arch extend toward a neutral foot axis of a foot of a user when the sole structure is worn by the user (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Meschter discloses that the midfoot portion comprises a support tie (132) located between the lateral arch and the medial arch, the support tie comprising: a forefoot plate (136) connected to the forefoot portion, a heel plate (134) connected to the heel portion, and a flexible portion (138) extending between the forefoot plate and the heel plate, wherein the flexible portion allows bending of the midfoot portion in a plantarflexion direction and limits bending of the midfoot portion in a dorsiflexion direction (column 8, lines 47-67; column 9, lines 52-63; Fig. 8-11).
Regarding claim 8, Meschter discloses that the flexible portion comprises a plurality of segments (138) extending between the forefoot plate and the heel plate, the plurality of segments comprising a first segment and a second segment rotatably coupled by a hinge (140) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Meschter discloses that a ground-facing surface of the first segment and a ground-facing surface of the second segment are configured to rotate toward each other when the midfoot portion bends in the plantarflexion direction, and wherein the ground-facing surface of the first segment and the ground-facing surface of the second segment are configured to rotate away from each other when the midfoot portion bends in the dorsiflexion direction (column 8, line 52-column 9, line 42; Fig. 8-11).
Regarding claim 10, Meschter discloses that the plurality of segments is configured to limit bending of the midfoot portion in the dorsiflexion direction (column 8, lines 47-67; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Meschter discloses that the flexible portion comprises a resilient structure (120) extending between the forefoot plate and the heel plate, wherein the resilient structure exerts a first compressive force between the forefoot plate and the heel plate when the midfoot portion is bent in the plantarflexion direction, and the resilient structure exerts a second compressive force between the forefoot plate and the heel plate when the midfoot portion is bent in the dorsiflexion direction, and wherein the second compressive force is larger than the first compressive force (column 7, lines 42-51; Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 13, Meschter discloses that the support tie bridges a gap between the forefoot portion and the heel portion (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 14, Meschter discloses that the medial void is further defined by the support tie and the lateral void is further defined by the support tie (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 15, Meschter discloses that the midfoot portion is formed from a polyurethane, a thermoplastic elastomer, a polyamide, or a combination thereof (column 7, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 16, Meschter discloses a shoe comprising the sole structure of claim 1 (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Meschter and Long does not disclose cleats. However, Meschter teaches that the footwear may be applicable to football or soccer (column 3, lines 60-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cleats to the forefoot portion and heel portion, in order to provide adequate traction for playing football or soccer.
Regarding claim 18, Long teaches a shoelace (909) laced through a medial lace aperture (991-993) formed in the medial arch and a lateral lace aperture (994-996) formed in the lateral arch (paragraph 0087; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Meschter discloses a sole structure for a shoe, comprising: a forefoot portion (116); a heel portion (114); and a midfoot portion (120, 132) coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion, the midfoot portion comprising: a forefoot plate (136) connected to the forefoot portion, a heel plate (134) connected to the heel portion, and a flexible portion (120, 138) extending between the forefoot plate and the heel plate, wherein the flexible portion allows bending of the midfoot portion in a plantarflexion direction and limits bending of the midfoot portion in a dorsiflexion direction (column 7, lines 11-19, 42-63; column 8, lines 3-113; column 9, lines 52-63; Fig. 8-11).
Meschter does not disclose an arch as claimed. Long teaches a sole structure for a shoe, comprising: a forefoot portion (103); a heel portion (104); and a midfoot portion (980) coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion, the midfoot portion comprising: an arch (926) connected to a forefoot plate (182) and a heel plate (184), comprising a forefoot arm extending toward the heel portion and a heel arm extending toward the forefoot portion, wherein the forefoot arm and the heel arm meet at an apex of the arch, and wherein the arch defines a void located between the forefoot arm and the heel arm (paragraphs 0049, 0054-0059, 0083-0087; Fig. 9-10). The arch allows independent movement of the forefoot and heel portions while limiting stress on the arch of the foot, particularly when in an en pointe position (paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an arch, as taught by Long, to the midfoot portion of Meschter in order to limit stress on the arch of the foot, particularly when in an en pointe position.
Regarding claim 20, Meschter discloses that the flexible portion comprises a plurality of rotatable segments (138) configured to limit bending of the midfoot portion in the dorsiflexion direction, a resilient structure (120) configured to limit bending of the midfoot portion in the dorsiflexion direction, or both (column 7, lines 51-51; column 8, lines 47-67; column 9, lines 52-63; Fig. 3, 4, 8-11).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Meschter does not disclose the specific first and second bending stiffnesses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first bending stiffness in the range of 0.1 N-m/degree to 0.8 N-m/degree and the second bending stiffness in the range of 0.8 N-m/degree to 1.6 N-m/degree, or the first bending stiffness at least 0.1 N-m/degree less than the second bending stiffness, in order to provide specific support and flexibility to the sole structure, depending on the needs of the user. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meschter and Long, as applied to claims 1, 7, and 11, further in view of Terlizzi et al. (US 7,337,558), herein Terlizzi.
Regarding claim 12, Meschter does not explicitly disclose that the resilient structure is an elastic band. Terlizzi teaches a sole structure having a forefoot portion (110), a heel portion (118), and a flexible tie in the form of an elastic band (140) extending between the forefoot and heel portions and covering the bottom seam of the upper (column 7, lines 11-21; Fig. 1C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the resilient structure of Meschter in the form of an elastic band, as taught by Terlizzi, in order to use a material which can stretch and move with the movement of the foot.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meschter and Long, as applied to claim 19, further in view of Baucom et al. (US 2018/0055143), herein Baucom.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Meschter and Long does not disclose that the forefoot plate and the heel plate are configured to be removably coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion such that the midfoot portion can be exchanged with an additional midfoot portion. Baucom teaches a sole structure for a shoe having a flexible portion (52) which allows bending of the midfoot portion in a plantarflexion direction and limits bending of the midfoot portion in a dorsiflexion direction. The flexible portion is configured to be removably coupled to the sole structure such that the flexible portion can be exchanged with an additional flexible portion, and wherein the additional flexible portion allows bending of the midfoot portion in the plantarflexion direction and limits bending of the midfoot portion in the dorsiflexion direction, allowing different flexible portions with different bending/compression properties to be interchangeably used with the sole, and the bending stiffness of the sole plate to be customized to a particular activity or wearer (paragraph 0042, lines 10-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the midfoot portion of Meschter and Long such that it is configured to be removably coupled, and an additional midfoot portion, as taught by Baucom, in order to allow different flexible portions with different bending/compression properties to be interchangeably used with the sole, and the bending stiffness of the sole plate to be customized to a particular activity or wearer.
Regarding claim 22, Baucom teaches that the flexible portion and the additional flexible portion comprise different bending properties (paragraph 0042).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Meschter and Long have opposing disclosures, as Meschter discloses supporting the arch during downward movements, and Long discloses supporting the arch when the foot moves to a substantially curled position, in the opposite direction disclosed by Meschter. However, even if Meschter and Long are directed to supporting the foot during different movements, these are not opposing disclosures. Both Meschter and Long are directed to footwear for use with dancing (Meschter: column 3, lines 36-45; Long: paragraphs 0040, 0044). Dance movements include both downward movements (as discussed in Meschter), and curled, en pointe movements (as discussed in Long). These are not mutually exclusive, or opposed movements, but rather complementary movements which are both utilized while wearing a dance shoe. In fact, Meschter specifically discusses the foot “bending, curling, and/or twisting, which are common movement performed during dance activities” (column 3, lines 44-45). Therefore, the disclosures of Meschter and Long are not opposing, but rather are complementary to each other. The combination of Meschter and Long teaches a shoe which supports the foot in both downward and curled movements, which are both utilized while dancing.
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 SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732