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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to applicants’ amendment to claim 12, this claim now reads on the elected species shown in figure 6 and has been Examined below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no clear basis for the phrase “wherein the intermediate layer is located between the low-friction surface and the compressible layer”. In applicant’s specification paragraph [0030] the low-friction surface (608a and 608b) and the intermediate layer (606) are discussed. There is no clear statement to support the phrase “wherein the intermediate layer is located between the low-friction surface and the compressible layer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 the phrase “wherein the low-friction surface is prominent of the first high-friction surface when vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) are low, wherein the high-friction surface is prominent of the low-friction surface in response to increasing GRFs” is vague, confusing, and indefinite because it recites an intended function without sufficient structure, i.e. means for performing the recited function and therefore it is not clear what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language.
In claim 6 the phrase “wherein the low-friction surface is coextensive with the compressible material and the recess” is confusing, vague, and indefinite because it is not clear how the low-friction surface is coextensive with both the compressible material and the recess when the compressible material is positioned within the recess.
In claim 12 the phrase “wherein the low-friction surface remains prominent relative to the high-friction surface with no ground reaction forces are applied” and claim 15 are vague, confusing, and indefinite because it recites an intended function without sufficient structure, i.e. means for performing the recited function and therefore it is not clear what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language.
Claim 16 does not appear to provide any further structural limitations and merely recites an inherent function of previously claimed structures and therefore it is not clear what further structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benseler (4141158).
Benseler shows A variable friction shoe comprising:
an outsole (shown in figures 1 and 2);
a compressible layer (the sole body, see below marked up figure is made from compressible material, see column 2 lines 45-51);
an intermediate layer (9, see marked up figure below);
a first high-friction surface (see marked up figure below and column 2 line 63- column 4 line 20 which described the numerous structures on the peripheral area noted below that enhance, increase traction and therefore inherently are a higher frictional surface); and
a low-friction surface (bottom of portions 9 as noted below and as discussed in column 4 lines 21-29 which states portions 9 provide a soft elastic step and these portions are shown and described as smooth, i.e. without any additional tread or friction enhancing elements and therefore is inherently lower frictional surface than the surfaces noted above and shown below that have additional tread/frictional elements), wherein the intermediate layer is located between the low-friction surface and the compressible layer (as noted below), wherein the low-friction surface is prominent of the first high-friction surface when vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) are low, wherein the high-friction surface is prominent of the low-friction surface in response to increasing GRFs (as shown below in figure 2 the low-friction surface (9) extends beyond the high-friction surface and therefore inherently would function as claimed) as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 3, 7, 8, and 10 see figure 1 which shows multiple low-friction surfaces (9).
In reference to claim 4, see figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
302
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benseler (4083125).
Benseler shows A variable friction shoe comprising:
an outsole (shown in figures 3-9);
a compressible layer (82);
an intermediate layer (79, see marked up figure below);
a first high-friction surface (see marked up figure below including traction enhancing slots 90-92 which increase traction and therefore inherently provide a higher frictional surface); and
a low-friction surface (bottom of portions 73-75 as noted below and as discussed in column 7 lines 54-68 which states portions 73-75 provide a soft elastic step and these portions are shown and described as smooth, i.e. without any additional tread or friction enhancing elements and therefore is inherently lower frictional surface than the surfaces noted above and shown below that have additional tread/frictional elements), wherein the intermediate layer is located between the low-friction surface and the compressible layer (as shown in figures 7 and 8), wherein the low-friction surface is prominent of the first high-friction surface when vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) are low, wherein the high-friction surface is prominent of the low-friction surface in response to increasing GRFs (as shown below in figure 7 the low-friction surface (bottom of 73-75) extends beyond the high-friction surface and therefore inherently would function as claimed) as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
1008
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10, see figures 3, 7, and 9 which show a plurality of low-friction surfaces (73-75) located as claimed. In reference to claim 5, Benseler shows a plurality of compressible layers (84 and 82).
In reference to claim 6, the compressible layer is shown in figure 7 as being within a recess of the sole and the low-friction surface is considered to be coextensive inasmuch as the claims language is understood.
In reference to claim 9, if one were to consider the hollow spaces/air at 77 to be an intermediate layer, then the low-friction surface (73-75) would be formed from a different material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, and 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. It is recommended that applicant include language such as “wherein the layers and surfaces are configured to provide a means for allowing the low-friction surface to remain prominent relative to the high-friction surface when no ground reaction forces are applied” to overcome the 112 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
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.
In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet.
Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425.
/MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732