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
The amendments filed with the written response received on January 23, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been amended; claims 4 and 11 are canceled; and claim 12 has been added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed October 23, 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should recite, “such that each of the one or more rear-foot components provides respectively different levels of heel correction”;
Claim 6 should recite, “wherein the relatively rigid plastic material is sufficiently strong such that an arched shape of at least the arched support region of each of the two or more mid-foot components is configured to be maintained a wearer so as to provide the respectively different levels of arch support”;
Claim 7 should recite, “wherein one or more of the two or more mid-foot components comprises a flat forward landing for receiving a front of [[the]] a wearer’s foot”;
Claim 9 should recite, “wherein the two or more mid-foot components comprises a first mid-foot component, a second mid-foot component, and a third mid-foot component, wherein the support region of the first mid-foot component is arched to provide arch support;the second mid-foot component is arched to provide greater arch support than the first mid-foot component; the third mid-foot component is arched to provide greater arch support than the second mid-foot component
Claim 10 should recite, “wherein the one or more rear-foot components comprises a first rear-foot component, a rear mid-foot component, and a third rear-foot component, [[a]] the first rear-foot component[[,]] having a substantially flat heel cup regionthe second rear-foot component[[,]] having a heel cup region the third rear-foot component[[,]] having a heel cup region provide a high level of heel correction
Claim 12 is a duplicate of claim 5 and is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 3, and 10 (and claims 2, 5-9, and 12 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “A kit for forming a foot orthotic… wherein each of the one or more rear-foot components is removably attachable to each of the two or more mid-foot components to form an orthotic providing differing levels of arch and/or heel support”. It is unclear if the “an orthotics” is referring to the “foot orthotic” recited in the preamble or to a different or additional foot orthotic. Further, it is unclear how an orthotic can provide different levels of arch support or different levels of heel support as an orthotic would only provide one level of arch support and one level of heel support. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A kit for providing customizable arch and/or heel support… wherein each of the one or more rear-foot components is removably attachable to each of the two or more mid-foot components to form an orthotic pthe orthotic
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the two or more mid-foot component comprises a rearward region configured for removable attachment to the one or more rear-foot components.” It is unclear if the “removable attachment” of claim 3 is referring to the “removable attachment” recited in claim 1 or to a different/additional removable attachment. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the respective complementarily shaped features to facilitate removable attachment between each of the two or more mid-foot components and each of the one or more rear-foot components form on the underside of each of the two or more mid-foot components and the underside of each of the one or more rear-foot components are located in a rearward region of each of the two or more midfoot components and in a rearward region of each of the one or more rear-foot components, respectively
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites, “substantially no heel correction”. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much heel correction can be present to be in order to be included or excluded by the claim.
The terms “mild” and “high” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the heel cup regions provide more or less heel correction relative to each other.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wert (US 7913429), in view of Campbell (US 2004/0103561), and in view of Schickling (US 2020/0107612).
Regarding claim 1, Wert discloses a kit for forming a foot orthotic (Figs. 1-15), the kit comprising: a midfoot component (20); and one or more rear-foot components (40, disclosed a plurality in col. 4, lines 20-30) configured to provide heel support (as they are located under the heel), wherein each of the one or more rear-foot components is removably attachable to the mid-foot component (via a hub 48 and aperture 25, see col. 4, lines 10-15) to form an orthotic providing differing levels of arch and/or heel support (as the angle of the heel is changed, see col. 4, lines 20-30).
Wert does not expressly disclose wherein the midfoot component is two or more mid-foot components, each of the two or more mid-foot components having a support region that is arched to respective extents such that each of the two or more mid-foot components provides respectively different levels of arch support, and wherein an underside of each of the two or more mid-foot components and an underside of each of the one or more rear-foot components comprise respective complementarily shaped features to facilitate removable attachment between each of the two or more mid-foot components and each of the one or more rear-foot components to form an orthotic.
Campbell teaches an orthotic component system comprising two or more mid-foot components (240 including 242, 244, and 246, see Fig. 2) each of the two or more mid-foot components having a support region (see annotated Fig. 2) that is arched to respective extents (based on an orthopedic correction factor, the thickness of the arch region varies, see para. 0054) such that each of the two or more mid-foot components provides respectively different levels of arch support (as understood from paras. 0054 and 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the midfoot component of Wert a plurality of midfoot components with different levels of support as taught by Campbell in order “to provide a user-selected orthopedic correction factor such as a pronation correction factor, a supination correction factor, and a neutral correction factor” (para. 0054 of Campbell) “to provide a therapeutic characteristic for a podiatric condition, which may include plantar fasciitis or another medical condition such as cuboid syndrome, a neuroma, hammertoe, a bunion, a pronation condition, tendinitis, or a foot ailment” (para. 0059 of Campbell).
When used in combination, the one or more rear-foot components would be removably attachable to each of the two or more mid-foot components.
The modified kit of Wert does not expressly disclose wherein an underside of each of the two or more mid-foot components and an underside of each of the one or more rear-foot components comprise respective complementarily shaped features to facilitate removable attachment between each of the two or more mid-foot components and each of the one or more rear-foot components to form an orthotic.
Schickling teaches a customizable footwear system wherein an underside of the mid-foot component (2352B, see Fig. 23) and an underside of the rear-foot component (2301) comprise respective complementarily shaped features (2301A on the underside of 2352B, and 2301B are “openings” and therefore extend through 2301 and therefore are on the underside of 2301) to facilitate removable attachment between the mid-foot component and the rear-foot component to form an orthotic (see para. 0159).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move complementary shaped attachment components of the modified kit of Wert, to the bottom surface of each component, as taught by Schickling, so that the protruding parts on the midfoot components are project downward into a receiving portion instead of upward thereby eliminating any discomfort of a protruding part protruding into the heel of the wearer.
When used in combination, the one or more rear-foot components would be removably attachable to each of the two or more mid-foot components via the respective complementarily shaped features on the underside of each component thereby facilitating removable attachment between each of the two or more mid-foot components and each of the one or more rear-foot components to form an orthotic.
Regarding claim 2, the modified kit of Wert discloses wherein the one or more rear-foot components (as 40 is disclosed a plurality in col. 4, lines 20-30), each having a heel cup region (upper surface of 40) that is angled to respective extents (as the height difference between side arms 43 and 44 created different posing angles, see col. 4, lines 20-30) such that each rear-foot component provides respectively different levels of heel correction (understood from col. 4, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 3, the modified kit of Wert discloses wherein each of the two or more mid-foot components (20 of Wert modified to be a plurality with different levels of support) comprises a rearward region (23 of Wert) configured for removable attachment to the rear-foot component(s) (as modified to use 2301A and 2301B of Schickling).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the modified kit of Wert discloses wherein the complementary shaped features are teeth (2301A of Schickling) on the underside of the one or more rearfoot components (as understood from Fig. 23 of Schickling) and corresponding grooves (2301B of Schickling) on the underside of the one or more rear-foot components into which the teeth are insertable (as understood from Fig. 23 and para. 0159 of Schickling).
Regarding claim 6, the modified kit of Wert discloses wherein the mid-foot components (20 of Wert modified to be a plurality with different levels of support) and the rear-foot component(s) (40 of Wert) are formed from a relatively rigid plastic material (as each can be formed of polypropylene reshaped with heating, see col. 3, lines 10-15 and 40-45, they are considered rigid at least to another material), wherein the relatively rigid plastic material is sufficiently strong such that at least the arched support region of each mid-foot component maintains its arched shape under the weight of the wearer so as to provide the desired arch support (as the polypropylene would not change shape under the weight of at least one person wearing the orthotic).
Regarding claim 7, the modified kit of Wert discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein one or more of the two or more of the mid-foot components comprise a flat forward landing for receiving a front of the wearer's foot.
Campbell teaches an orthotic component system wherein one or more of the two or more of the mid-foot components (240 including 242, 244, and 246) comprise a flat forward landing (see forefoot portion of 242, 242, and 246 in Fig. 2 which is flat compared to the rest of the mid-foot component) for receiving a front of the wearer's foot (as can be seen in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the midfoot components of the modified kit of Wert to extend under the toes as taught by Campbell in order to “comfortably [encompass] the bottoms of the toes.. reduce stress on the balls of the foot, and aid in distributing ambulatory stresses in the front portion of the foot” (para. 0060 of Campbell).
Regarding claim 9, the modified kit of Wert discloses comprising: a first mid-foot component (246 of Campbell), the support region which is arched (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 of Campbell, the support region of 246 has the lowest arch) to provide arch support (as it has the lowest arch); a second mid-foot component (242 of Campbell), the support region of which is arched to provide greater arch support than the first mid-foot component (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 of Campbell, the support region of 242 has the middle most height of arch); and a third mid-foot component (244 of Campbell), the support region of which is arched to provide greater level of arch support then the second mid-foot component (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 of Campbell, the support region of 242 has the middle most height of arch) (Further, para. 0054 of Campbell discloses the arch portions of each 240 have varying levels of thickness); and wherein the first, second, and third mid-foot components are part of the two or more mid-food (foot) components (as understood from claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, the modified kit of Wert discloses comprising: a first rear-foot component, having a heel cup region of which is substantially flat so as to provide substantially no heel correction; a second rear-foot component, having a heel cup region of which is angled to a first extent so as to provide a mild level heel correction; and a third rear-foot component, having a heel cup region of which is angled to a second extent which is larger than the first extent so as to provide a high level of heel correction (as understood from col. 4, lines 20-30 of Wert, the plurality of 40 have different posting angles from 0 degrees to 6 degrees, one of 0 degrees would be “substantially flat” and provide no correction, 2 degrees would provide mild heel correction, and 6 degrees would provide a high level of heel correction); and wherein the first, second, and third rear-foot components are part of the one or more rear-foot components (as understood from claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Wert, Campbell, and Schickling, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosmas (US 2008/0010861).
Regarding claim 8 , the modified kit of Wert discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein each of the two or more mid-foot components, or each of the one or more rear-foot components comprises an upper cushioning layer for receiving the wearer's foot.
Kosmas teaches an orthotic device wherein the device (200) comprises an upper cushioning layer (220) for receiving the wearer’s foot (as the device is worn under the foot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an upper cushioning layer to each component of the modified kit of Wert, as taught by Kosmas “to provide cushioning and support throughout the footprint of the foot” (see para. 0014 of Kosmas).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Campbell)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 and the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732