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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 and subspecies A in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-5 and 12 recite “the method of Claim 1…” but should read “The force absorbing shoe sole of Claim 1” as Claim 1 does not recite a method. 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation “the angle exerting a compressive force on the elastic field,” which renders the claim indefinite. An angle is a measurement, and it is not clear how a measurement is capable of exerting a compressive force. As Claim 5 recites the actuator as having an angle, for purposes of examination the actuator will be considered to be the structure exerting the force.
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) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campari ().
Regarding Claim 1, Campari teaches a force absorbing shoe sole (see annotated Fig.) , comprising: a footbed (see annotated Fig.) configured for engagement with a foot of a wearer (annotated fig. 10 shows the footbed being upward facing and configured to engage with a wearer’s foot); an outsole (31) in communication with a ground or floor surface (fig. 11 shows the outsole (31) being the lowermost surface and capable of being in communication with a ground); and a midsole (3d), the midsole disposed between the footbed and the outsole (annotated fig. 10shows the midsole being disposed between the footbed and the outsole), the midsole engaged with the outsole through at least one force mitigation coupling (9, 30) for accommodating lateral displacement between the midsole and the outsole (fig. 11 shows the force mitigation coupling (9, 30) capable of accommodating lateral displacement between the midsole and the outsole), the outsole having a heel portion and a toe portion, the heel portion and the toe portion having separate respective engagements with the midsole for independent movement (annotated figs. 1 and 2 show the heel and toe portions of the outsole having separate respective engagements with the midsole (3d), examiner notes that each outsole portion is clearly capable of being the selected embodiment shown in figs. 10-11 as paragraph [0035] teaches “each stud 4a, 4b, 4c or 4d is associated with the respective sole 3a, 3b, 3c or 3d,” therein the outsole portions are all clearly capable of being the same along the sole).
Regarding Claim 2, Campari teaches all of the limitations of the shoe sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Campari further teaches wherein the force mitigation coupling (9, 30) includes an actuator (9) disposed in an elastic field (30), the actuator attached to the midsole (fig. 10 shows element (36) attaching the actuator (9) to the midsole (3d)) and the elastic field (30) embedded in the outsole (31) (fig. 10 shows the elastic field (30) embedded in the outsole (31)).
Regarding Claim 3, Campari teaches all of the limitations of the shoe sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Campari further teaches a plurality of the force mitigation couplings, including: at least one force mitigation coupling between the heel portion and the midsole; at least one force mitigation coupling between the toe portion and the midsole (fig. 1 shows the plurality of force mitigation couplings each disposed within structure 4d, wherein as noted above each 4 structure can be embodiment 4d), each of the force mitigation couplings defined by an actuator (9) adapted for slidable movement compressing an elastic field (30) (fig. 11 shows the actuator (9) adapted to slideably move to compress the elastic field (30)).
Regarding Claim 4, Campari teaches all of the limitations of the shoe sole of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Campari further teaches wherein the actuator (9) is a rigid material (fig. 11 shows the actuator compressing the elastic field, therein the actuator is considered to be a rigid material as it is more rigid than the elastic field) and the elastic field is a resilient, compressible material (paragraph [0048] teaches “inner part 30 which is made of an elastically deformable material”), the elastic field exerting a force with a component in a direction perpendicular to a direction of compression exerted by the actuator (fig. 11 shows the elastic field exerting a force, wherein the force is clearly capable of being perpendicular, or normal to the direction of compression exerted by the actuator).
Regarding Claim 5 in view of the indefiniteness as explained above, Campari teaches all of the limitations of the shoe sole of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Campari further teaches wherein the actuator has a compressive surface (see annotated Fig.) oriented at an angle to a direction of translation across the elastic field, the angle exerting a compressive force on the elastic field in a direction perpendicular to the direction of translation (fig. 11 shows the actuator (9) having a compressive surface, the surface being oriented at an angle to a direction of translation across the elastic field, wherein the surface of the actuator is clearly capable of performing the function of exerting a compressive force in a direction perpendicular to the direction of translation).
Regarding Claim 12, Campari teaches all of the limitations of the shoe sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Campari further teaches a recession (see annotated Fig.) in the toe portion; a recession in the heel portion (annotated fig. 10 shows the recession, wherein the recession is clearly present at each structure (4d) in the heel and toe portion, as shown in fig. 1); each of the recessions configured to contain a force mitigation module (9, 30) defining the force mitigation coupling; and an attachment of the actuator of each of the force mitigation modules to the midsole for mitigating forces between the midsole and the outsole (fig. 10 shows the recessions containing a force mitigation module (9, 30) that defines the force mitigation coupling, and the actuator (9) being attached to the midsole (3d) and capable of mitigating forces between the midsole (3d) and the outsole (31)).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 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, 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights