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 .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 1/28/2026, claim 1 is amended. Claim 10 is canceled. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending, and claims 1, 4, and 8 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/28/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim(s) 1 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. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has introduced new limitations that have altered the scope of the claims, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from independent claim 1; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 2020/0329815) in view of Fusco (US 6763611), Guyan (US 2018/0049514), and Landi (US 4485568).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid discloses: Footwear comprising: a footbed (24, 26, 28) configured to support a sole of a foot of a wearer and including: a sole (outsole 26) comprising a ground-contacting surface and a midsole (midsole 24) above the ground-contacting surface; a sockliner (insole 28) disposed above the midsole and insertable into an inside of an upper configured to cover a portion of a foot of a wearer (“the upper 22 is […] configured to at least partially define a cavity 32 for foot insertion. The insole 28 is insertable into or formed within the cavity 32” paragraph 25); a forefoot area configured to support a toe portion and a ball portion of the foot of the wearer (see annotated figure 4B below); a midfoot area configured to support an arch portion of the foot of the wearer (see annotated figure 4B below); and a rearfoot area configured to support a heel portion of the foot of the wearer (see annotated figure 4B below), wherein the forefoot area, the midfoot area, and the rearfoot area are arranged in a continuous manner along a front-rear direction of the footwear, the forefoot area includes a medial forefoot area and a lateral forefoot area defined by a shoe center of the footwear when viewed along a direction perpendicular to the ground-contacting surface (see annotated figure 4B below), the midfoot area includes a medial midfoot area and a lateral midfoot area defined by the shoe center of the footwear when viewed along the direction perpendicular to the ground- contacting surface (see annotated figure 4B below), the rearfoot area includes a medial rearfoot area and a lateral rearfoot area defined by the shoe center of the footwear when viewed along the direction perpendicular to the ground- contacting surface (see annotated figure 4B below), the sockliner includes a base layer (insole base layer 34) comprising a cushioning portion configured of a three-dimensional mesh structure body in which multiple unit structures are repeatedly arranged to be adjacent to one another (“one or more zones 40 may comprise a ‘unit cell’, which may be replicated through the zone 40. A unit cell may be part of a lattice structure that may be repeated and connected to form a flexible design for insole base layer 34” paragraph 36), the cushioning portion being across the medial forefoot area, the lateral forefoot area, the medial midfoot area (see figure 4B), the lateral midfoot area, the medial rearfoot area, and the lateral rearfoot area, the sockliner also includes an upper layer (insole top layer 36) above the base layer (“insole top layer 36 [...] is laid over or affixed to a top of insole base layer 34” paragraph 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
219
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4B of Schmid showing the medial and lateral forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot areas
Schmid teaches, “insole base layer 34 may comprise multiple functional zones 40 that may each vary in lattice density, lattice type, and may possess a density gradient across one or multiple functional zones 40” (paragraph 36) and “the stiffness at certain points in the lattice structure may vary based off of the user’s physiological data and a desired or recommended compression response” (paragraph 38), but does not explicitly disclose: an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the medial forefoot area is larger than an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion located in the lateral forefoot area, an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the medial midfoot area is larger than an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the lateral midfoot area, an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the medial rearfoot area is larger than an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the lateral rearfoot area.
However, Fusco teaches: a cushioning portion for footwear comprising a lattice structure (200), wherein an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the medial forefoot area is larger than an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion located in the lateral forefoot area, an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the medial midfoot area is larger than an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the lateral midfoot area, and an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the medial rearfoot area is larger than an occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in a portion in the lateral rearfoot area (“lattice structure 200 may be configured to impart greater medial support [...] One manner in which this may be accomplished is by providing a greater concentration of masses 220 on the medial side of sole 120” column 6, lines 25-29; see figure 4 showing a greater concentration of masses on the medial side compared to the lateral side in the forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot areas).
Fusco teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with lattice structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to increase the density of the unit cells of Schmid on the medial side, as taught by Fusco, in order to “impart greater medial support, thereby reducing the rate of pronation or limiting inversion and eversion of the foot” (Fusco, column 6, lines 25-27), which will improve comfort for the user while walking or running and reduce the risk of injury.
Schmid teaches, “insole base layer 34 may comprise multiple functional zones 40 that may each vary in lattice density, lattice type, and may possess a density gradient across one or multiple functional zones 40” (paragraph 36) and “the stiffness at certain points in the lattice structure may vary based off of the user’s physiological data and a desired or recommended compression response” (paragraph 38), but does not explicitly disclose: the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial forefoot area is smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial midfoot area, the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral forefoot area is smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral midfoot area, the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial midfoot area is equal to or smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial rearfoot area, and the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral midfoot area is equal to or smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral rearfoot area.
However, Guyan teaches a cushioning portion for footwear comprising a lattice structure (108), wherein the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial forefoot area is smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial midfoot area (“in the ball of the foot zone 220, the lattice 108 has a relatively low height H and laths 136 and incomplete laths 176 with relatively thin girths 152 to provide relatively little padding with relatively soft cushion and relatively high springiness to the ball of the foot region 86 of the foot 50 during gait” paragraph 50; see figure 8 showing the ball of the foot zone 220 is in the forefoot area and is located on both the medial and lateral sides of the footbed; Examiner notes that thinner girths would have a lower occupied volume ratio), the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral forefoot area is smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral midfoot area (“in the ball of the foot zone 220, the lattice 108 has a relatively low height H and laths 136 and incomplete laths 176 with relatively thin girths 152 to provide relatively little padding with relatively soft cushion and relatively high springiness to the ball of the foot region 86 of the foot 50 during gait” paragraph 50; see figure 8 showing the ball of the foot zone 220 is in the forefoot area and is located on both the medial and lateral sides of the footbed; Examiner notes that thinner girths would have a lower occupied volume ratio), the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial midfoot area is equal to or smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the medial rearfoot area (“in the calcaneus zone 204, the lattice 108 has a relatively high height H and laths 136 and incomplete laths 176 with relatively thick girths 152 to provide substantial padding with relatively stiff cushion to the calcaneus bone 68” paragraph 46; see figure 8 showing the calcaneus zone 204 is in the heel area and is located on both the medial and lateral sides of the footbed; Examiner notes that thicker girths would have a higher occupied volume ratio), and the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral midfoot area is equal to or smaller than the occupied volume ratio of the cushioning portion in the portion in the lateral rearfoot area (“in the calcaneus zone 204, the lattice 108 has a relatively high height H and laths 136 and incomplete laths 176 with relatively thick girths 152 to provide substantial padding with relatively stiff cushion to the calcaneus bone 68” paragraph 46; see figure 8 showing the calcaneus zone 204 is in the heel area and is located on both the medial and lateral sides of the footbed; Examiner notes that thicker girths would have a higher occupied volume ratio).
Guyan teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with lattice structures. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the lattice structure of Schmid with thicker girths in the heel area and thinner girths in the ball of the foot region, as taught by Guyan, in order to “provide relatively stiff cushion to the calcaneus bone 68. This is useful to pad the calcaneus region 66 of the foot 50 when the user initially makes contact with the ground during gait because a force of the impact on the calcaneus bone 68 can be quite high during that event” (Guyan, paragraph 46), which will also be useful for “providing stability and maintaining structure under the applied pressure” (Guyan, paragraph 44), and to “provide springiness [at the ball of the foot] as the user begins to push off the foot 50 during gait” (Guyan, paragraph 50), which will also be useful for “providing spring when the user pushes off or removes pressure and for deforming to better absorb impact” (Guyan, paragraph 44).
Schmid does not explicitly disclose: the upper layer being a sheet and having a plurality of through-holes penetrating the upper layer in an up-down direction, the plurality of through-holes communicating with holes in the base layer.
However, Landi teaches: a sockliner (30) including a base layer with a lattice structure (overexpanded honeycomb structure) and an upper layer (31), the upper layer (31) being a sheet and having a plurality of through-holes (36) penetrating the upper layer in an up-down direction (see figure 5), the plurality of through-holes communicating with holes in the base layer (“it is preferred that cushion 31 be perforated with small holes 36 in an array such that each cell in the overexpanded honeycomb is ventilated” column 4, lines 18-20).
Landi teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with lattice structures. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the top layer of the insole of Schmid perforated with holes that communicate with the holes in the lattice structure below, as taught by Landi, so that “each cell in the [lattice structure] is ventilated” which will “[provide] air circulation through the insole” (Landi, column 4, lines 19-21), this will keep the user’s foot cooler and more comfortable when their foot get sweaty, such as during strenuous athletic activity or in hot weather.
Regarding claim 4, Schmid as modified discloses: The footwear according to Claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional mesh structure body has a three-dimensional lattice structure (Schmid, “insole base layer 34 is made using additive manufacturing techniques and lattice structures that comprise multiple zones 40 within a same monolithic part” paragraph 33; see also figure 4B).
Regarding claim 8, Schmid as modified discloses: The footwear according to Claim 1, wherein the cushioning portion is configured of a single object shaped by three-dimensional additive manufacturing (Schmid, “insole base layer 34 is made using additive manufacturing techniques and lattice structures that comprise multiple zones 40 within a same monolithic part” paragraph 33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Canfield (US 2019/0313736) teaches a footbed with varying cushioning characteristics. Galasso (US 4896441) teaches an insole with elastic elements of different dimensions and hardness at different locations on the insole. Cluckers (US 2017/0332733) teaches an insole with a lattice structure formed by additive manufacturing.
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights