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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Figures 1-13 and claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant should remove all language relating to the claims numbers in the specification, inasmuch as the claims are often changed, deleted, added and renumbered. The specification must provide a full disclosure of the invention including all claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 3, the phrase “the up-per” should be - - the upper - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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) 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spiller (Pub. No. US 2014/0259768).
With respect to claim 1, Spiller discloses a protective shoe (safety shoe, see figures 1A-5B), comprising:
a) an upper (outer shell 20; 120, etc.) for receiving a shoe wearer's foot (Shell 20 may also include an inner cavity 21 shaped to accommodate a user's foot, which has various recessed areas or cutouts 31, 32 for receiving a portion of chassis 50, as one embodiment), and
b) a sole arrangement (chassis 50; 150, etc.) which is connected to the upper and, in an assembled state of the protective shoe, is latchingly connected to the upper via at least one first latching arrangement (recessed areas 31, 32 may be bounded by stop surfaces 34 on either side to receive and securely hold a portion of chassis 50 within the relevant recessed area 31, 32, for example)
c) wherein the at least one first latching arrangement forms a latching connection (during insertion of chassis 50 within inner cavity 21 of shell 20, a user may press-fit toe cap 52 and heel counter 86 within recessed areas 31, 32, such that chassis 50 is retained within shell 20 due to interference between stop surfaces 34, 64, 94, 96, see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.) between a midsole (insole board 66 of chassis 50) of the sole arrangement (50) and the upper (20).
With respect to claim 2, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one first latching arrangement is situated in a front, middle and/or rear region of the protective shoe (during insertion of chassis 50 within inner cavity 21 of shell 20, a user may press-fit toe cap 52 and heel counter 86 within recessed areas 31, 32, such that chassis 50 is retained within shell 20 due to interference between stop surfaces 34, 64, 94, 96, see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.).
With respect to claim 3, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one first latching arrangement has at least one first latching surface, which in the assembled state of the protective shoe extends adjacent to at least one mating latching surface of the midsole, on an inside of the upper (during insertion of chassis 50 within inner cavity 21 of shell 20, a user may press-fit toe cap 52 and heel counter 86 within recessed areas 31, 32, such that chassis 50 is retained within shell 20 due to interference between stop surfaces 34, 64, 94, 96, see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.).
With respect to claim 4, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one first latching surface at least partially faces downward see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.).
With respect to claim 6, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one first latching surface is assigned at least one mounting insertion aid (the area of the shell arranged above and adjacent to at least one first latching surface 34, see figures 1A, for example).
With respect to claim 7, Spiller discloses an outer shell (20, 120, etc.), which at least partially surrounds the midsole (66) and at least partially forms the upper (Shell 20, as shown in FIG. 1A, may include several aspects common to typical footwear, such as an outsole 22, an upper 24, and heel 26, forefoot 28, and instep 30 sections).
With respect to claim 8, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one first latching surface is formed on the outer shell (during insertion of chassis 50 within inner cavity 21 of shell 20, a user may press-fit toe cap 52 and heel counter 86 within recessed areas 31, 32, such that chassis 50 is retained within shell 20 due to interference between stop surfaces 34, 64, 94, 96, see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.).
With respect to claim 9, Spiller discloses a protective shoe (safety shoe, see figures 1A-5B), comprising:
a) an upper (shell 20, as shown in FIG. 1A, may include several aspects common to typical footwear, such as an outsole 22, an upper 24, and heel 26, forefoot 28, and instep 30 sections, for example) for receiving a shoe wearer's foot,
b) a sole arrangement (chassis 50, 150, etc.) connected to the upper in an assembled state of the protective shoe (during insertion of chassis 50 within inner cavity 21 of shell 20, a user may press-fit toe cap 52 and heel counter 86 within recessed areas 31, 32, such that chassis 50 is retained within shell 20 due to interference between stop surfaces 34, 64, 94, 96, see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.), and
c) a toe cap (as shown in FIG. 1B, in one embodiment chassis 50 may include a toe cap 52 having inner and outer surfaces 54, 56, the toe cap 52 being arrangeable over a user's forefoot region to protect the user's toes from injury due to an impact or other event) which, in the assembled state of the protective shoe, is latchingly connected to the upper via at least one latching arrangement (toe cap 52 includes stop surfaces 60, 64 for engaging with certain stop surfaces in outer shell 20).
With respect to claim 10, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one latching arrangement has at least one second latching surface, which extends adjacent to at least one mating latching surface of the toe cap, on an inside of the upper (once the toe cap 52 is inserted into shell 20, stop surface 64 of toe cap 52 contact respective stop surfaces 34 surrounding recessed areas 31, 32 of shell 20 so that toe cap 52 and thus chassis 50 are securely retained within shell 20).
With respect to claim 11, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one latching surface at least partially faces forward (see figures 1A-C).
With respect to claim 12, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one latching surface is formed at least in an in-step region of the upper (see figures 1A-C).
With respect to claim 13, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one latching surface laterally adjoins the sole arrangement in the assembled state of the protective shoe (once the chassis 50 is inserted into shell 20, stop surface 64 of toe cap 52 and stop surfaces 94, 96 of heel counter 86 may contact respective stop surfaces 34 surrounding recessed areas 31, 32 of shell 20 so that toe cap 52, heel counter 86, and thus chassis 50 are securely retained within shell 20).
With respect to claim 14, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one latching surface extends in an arc (once the toe cap 52 is inserted into shell 20, stop surface 64 of toe cap 52 contact respective stop surfaces 34 surrounding recessed areas 31, 32 of shell 20 so that toe cap 52 and thus chassis 50 are securely retained within shell 20, see figures 1A-C).
With respect to claim 15, Spiller discloses wherein the at least one latching surface is formed on an outer shell of the protective shoe during insertion of chassis 50 within inner cavity 21 of shell 20, a user may press-fit toe cap 52 and heel counter 86 within recessed areas 31, 32, such that chassis 50 is retained within shell 20 due to interference between stop surfaces 34, 64, 94, 96, see Figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, etc.).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiller.
With respect to claims 5 and 16-18, Spiller discloses all the limitations of the claims except it is silent to the percent of at least one first latching surface extending around the upper.
However, Spiller discloses the stop surface 64 on toe cap 52 and stop surface 94 on heel counter 86 may be separated by a first distance, which is slightly less than a second distance separating stop surfaces 34 of recessed areas 31, 32 that contact stop surfaces 64, 94. In this manner, once chassis 50 is inserted into shell 20, stop surfaces 64, 94 may be forced past stop surfaces 34 of recessed areas 31, 32 to securely lock chassis 50 in place (e.g., via a dimensional interference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one first latching surface extends around at least 60%, 70%, 80% and/or at least 90% of the upper, since the claimed latching surface is not patentably distinct from the prior art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions that does not perform differently than the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shown are protective shoes analogous to applicant’s instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JILA M MOHANDESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4558. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs. 7:00-5:00 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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/JILA M MOHANDESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
JMM
12/09/2025