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 amendment filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are currently pending in the application. Claims 12-15 and 20 have been previously withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-11, 16-17 and 21-22 are being treated on the merits. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 03/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and 22 are objected to as it sets forth a plurality of elements; however, the plurality of elements are not separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m) require each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, the preamble "The magnetic sole" should read "The magnetic outsole" for consistency.
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 16-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the flexible and resilient material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the resilient material".
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Min (KR 20060113126 A).
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses a magnetic sole (figs. 3a-4b; see English translation; p. 11, paras. 1-2; p. 15, para. 1) comprising:
a sole body (sole 42 having a body; figs. 3a-4b) having a bottom surface (see figs. 3a-4b), the sole body comprising a resilient material (the sole 42 made of a resilient synthetic resin material; p. 15, para. 1),
at least one magnet (magnets 10A-10C in a first magnet assembly 10; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1) contained within the resilient material of the sole body (figs. 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1), the at least one magnet comprising a body having a lateral outer periphery (figs. 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1), and
at least one paramagnet (at least iron housing 12; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 11, para. 2) contained within the resilient material of the sole body (figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 11, para. 2; p. 15, para. 1) that exerts a magnetic attraction force on the at least one magnet (inherent feature),
wherein the at least one paramagnet comprises a lateral outer periphery that extends laterally beyond the lateral outer periphery of at least one magnet (see figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 11, para. 2);
wherein the at least one magnet is positioned between the at least one paramagnet and the bottom surface of the sole body (see figs. 4a-4b), the resilient material is disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet (see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a) that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body (the magnets 10A-10C are integrally molded with the intermediate sole 42, therefore are directly bonded within the intermediate sole 42; see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a; p. 16, para. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4a from KR 20060113126 A
Regarding claim 22, Min discloses a magnetic sole (figs. 3a-4b; see English translation; p. 11, paras. 1-2; p. 15, para. 1) comprising:
a sole body (sole 42 having a body; figs. 3a-4b) having a bottom surface (figs. 3a-4b), the sole body comprising a resilient material (the sole 42 made of a resilient synthetic resin material; p. 15, para. 1),
at least one magnet (magnets 10A-10C in a first magnet assembly 10; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1) in contact with the resilient material of the sole body (figs. 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1), the at least one magnet comprising a body having a lateral outer periphery (figs. 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1), and
at least one paramagnet (at least iron housing 12; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 11, para. 2) contained within the resilient material of the sole body (figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 11, para. 2; p. 15, para. 1) that exerts a magnetic attraction force on the at least one magnet (inherent feature),
wherein the at least one paramagnet comprises a lateral outer periphery that extends laterally beyond the lateral outer periphery of at least one magnet (see figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 11, para. 2);
wherein the at least one magnet is positioned between the at least one paramagnet and the bottom surface of the sole body (see figs. 4a-4b), the resilient material is disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet (see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a) that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body (the magnets 10A-10C are integrally molded with the intermediate sole 42, therefore are directly bonded within the intermediate sole 42; see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a; p. 16, para. 2).
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2018/0055135 A1) in view of Min (KR 20060113126 A).
Regarding claim 1, Donaldson discloses a magnetic sole (including an insole, an outsole and a midsole; figs. 3-6; para. 0038; claim 1) having a bottom surface (at an outsole surface; see annotated fig. 6; para. 0044) and comprising:
a sole body (including a midsole and an outsole; figs. 3, 6; para. 044) having a bottom surface (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 6), the sole body comprising a resilient material (EVA and rubber materials; fig. 3; paras. 0044, 0051),
at least one magnet (magnets 105; figs. 3-6; para. 0038) contained within the resilient material of the sole body (in apertures 108 which are formed in the midsole; figs. 3, 6; para. 0044), the at least one magnet comprising a body having a lateral outer periphery (see annotated fig. 6),
and at least one paramagnet (housings 120 made of a ferrous metal; fig. 6; paras. 0043-0045) contained within the resilient material of the sole body that exerts a magnetic attraction force on the at least one magnet (fig. 6; para. 0043),
wherein the at least one paramagnet comprises a lateral outer periphery (see annotated fig. 6) that extends laterally beyond the lateral outer periphery of at least one magnet (see annotated fig. 6);
wherein the at least one magnet is positioned between the at least one paramagnet and the bottom surface of the sole (see annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
679
1059
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 from US 2018/0055135 A1
Donaldson does not disclose wherein the resilient material is disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body. However, Min, in an analogous art, teaches a magnetic sole (figs. 3a-4b; see English translation; p. 11, paras. 1-2; p. 15., para. 1) comprising at least one magnet (magnets 10A-10C in a first magnet assembly 10; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1) contained within a resilient material of the sole body (figs. 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1), the resilient material is disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet (see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a) that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body (the magnets 10-10C are integrally molded with the intermediate sole 42, therefore are directly bonded within the intermediate sole 42; see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a; p. 16, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the magnetic sole as disclosed by Donaldson, by configuring the housings 120 each partially enclosing the magnets 105 along the lateral outer periphery of the magnets 105 as taught by Min, in order to provide an alternative suitable configuration for the paramagnetic housings relative to the magnets. By this modification, the resilient material would be disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body.
Regarding claim 2, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 1. Donaldson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one magnet has direct contact with at least one paramagnet. However, Donaldson does disclose that each housing 120 is configured to accommodate a corresponding magnet, and Donaldson does not even indicate that there is another layer therebetween (fig. 6; para. 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the magnetic sole as disclosed by Donaldson, with wherein the at least one magnet has direct contact with at least one paramagnet, in order to prevent the magnets from moving or popping out of the housings and also facilitate limiting the magnets attraction or repulsion force (Donaldson; paras. 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 3, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 1, and Donaldson further discloses wherein a lower surface of the at least one magnet is spaced a distance from the bottom surface of the sole body of from about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm (the thickness of the outsole 104 is between 1 mm and 3 mm; see annotated fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 1, and Donaldson further discloses wherein the at least one magnet comprises a plurality of magnets (figs. 3-6) and the at least one paramagnet comprises a plurality of paramagnets (figs. 3, 6; para. 0043) having a thickness of about 5 mm or less (housing 120 is between about 0.5 mm and 2 mm thick; para. 0043), and wherein the plurality of magnets and the plurality of paramagnets are embedded within the resilient material of the sole body (figs. 3, 6; paras. 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 1, and Donaldson further discloses wherein the plurality of paramagnets includes one or more first paramagnets located within a forefoot portion of the sole body (see figs. 3-6), each having a width of less than 60 mm (the magnets are between 30 and 40 mm in diameter, and housings 120 are sized to receive the magnets 105 and slightly bigger than the magnets; see fig. 6; paras. 0043, 0054), and oriented laterally, transverse to a length of the magnetic sole (figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 6, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 5, and Donaldson further discloses wherein the paramagnets are ferromagnetic (as being a ferrous metal; paras. 0043-0045).
Regarding claim 22, Donaldson discloses a magnetic sole (including an insole, an outsole and a midsole; figs. 3-6; para. 0038; claim 1) having a bottom surface (at an outsole surface; see annotated fig. 6; para. 0044) and comprising:
a sole body (including a midsole and an outsole; figs. 3, 6; para. 044) having a bottom surface (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 6), the sole body comprising a resilient material (EVA and rubber materials; fig. 3; paras. 0044, 0051),
at least one magnet (magnets 105; figs. 3-6; para. 0038) contained within the resilient material of the sole body (in apertures 108 which are formed in the midsole; figs. 3, 6; para. 0044), the at least one magnet comprising a body having a lateral outer periphery (see annotated fig. 6),
and at least one paramagnet (housings 120 made of a ferrous metal; fig. 6; paras. 0043-0045) in contact with the resilient material of the sole body that exerts a magnetic attraction force on the at least one magnet (fig. 6; para. 0043),
wherein the at least one paramagnet comprises a lateral outer periphery (see annotated fig. 6) that extends laterally beyond the lateral outer periphery of at least one magnet (see annotated fig. 6);
wherein the at least one magnet is positioned between the at least one paramagnet and the bottom surface of the sole (see annotated fig. 6).
Donaldson does not disclose wherein the resilient material is disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body. However, Min, in an analogous art, teaches a magnetic sole (figs. 3a-4b; see English translation; p. 11, paras. 1-2; p. 15., para. 1) comprising at least one magnet (magnets 10A-10C in a first magnet assembly 10; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1) contained within a resilient material of the sole body (figs. 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1), the resilient material is disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet (see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a) that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body (the magnets 10-10C are integrally molded with the intermediate sole 42, therefore are directly bonded within the intermediate sole 42; see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a; p. 16, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the magnetic sole as disclosed by Donaldson, by configuring the housings 120 each partially enclosing the magnets 105 along the lateral outer periphery of the magnets 105 as taught by Min, in order to provide another suitable configuration for the paramagnetic housings relative to the magnets. By this modification, the resilient material would be disposed laterally outboard from the lateral outer periphery of the body of the at least one magnet to form a shoulder of resilient material around the lateral periphery of the at least one magnet that serves as a vertical support that inhibits or prevents vertical movement of the at least one paramagnet toward the bottom surface of the sole body.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2018/0055135 A1) and Min (KR 20060113126 A) and further in view of Nakanishi (US 5,853,854 A).
Regarding claim 7, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 6. Donaldson does not disclose wherein the sole body further comprises a fiberous fabric positioned between the ferromagnets and bottom surface. However, Nakanishi, in an analogous art, teaches a sole (sole 26; fig. 1A; col. 6, ll. 35-39) comprising a fiberous fabric (base sheet member 22 being a nonwoven fabric material; fig. 1A; col. 6, ll. 25-35) positioned between a midsole (immediately above base sheet member 22; see fig. 1A) and a bottom surface of an outsole (bottom surface of rugged pattern 24; fig. 1A; col. 2, ll. 39-42; col. 6, ll. 10-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the magnetic sole as disclosed by Donaldson, with wherein the sole body further comprises a fiberous fabric positioned between the midsole and a bottom surface of an outsole as taught by Nakanishi, in order to provide a suitable material layer conventionally used for a base material of an outer sole (Nakanishi; col. 6, ll. 25-35). By this combination, the sole body of Nakanishi would further comprise a fiberous fabric positioned between the ferromagnets and bottom surface.
Regarding claim 8, Donaldson, Min and Nakanishi, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 6. Donaldson does not explicitly disclose wherein the bottom surface is flat, for maximizing the contact area between the magnetic sole and a flat magnetic metal surface. However, Donaldson, in Figs. 3 and 6, does depict wherein the bottom surface is flat (see figs. 3, 6). In addition, Donaldson discloses that the magnetic sole is intended to provide a user with increased grip on a work surface such as a roof and in particular to a roof made of metallic materials (paras. 0006, 0012, 0033; claim 1). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configured the bottom surface of the magnetic sole to be flat, in order to provide sufficient grip between the bottom surface of the magnetic sole and the metallic work surface.
Regarding claim 9, Donaldson, Min and Nakanishi, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 6, and Donaldson further discloses wherein the resilient material comprises a rubber (the outsole comprising a rubber; para. 0051).
Donaldson does not explicitly disclose the rubber having a hardness between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore A. However, Donaldson has disclosed general conditions of the instant application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the rubber as claimed for the outsole, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Donaldson, Min and Nakanishi, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 6, and Donaldson further discloses a magnetic shoe (fig. 6) comprising the magnetic sole and a vamp (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Donaldson, Min and Nakanishi, in combination, disclose the magnetic shoe of Claim 10, and Donaldson further discloses the magnetic shoe further comprising a shock absorber (a portion of an insole; claim 1) within a heel portion of the magnetic sole (an insole generally extending through a heel portion; para. 0014).
Donaldson does not explicitly disclose wherein the shock absorber is made of an expanded polymer material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the shock absorber as claimed, in order to use a suitable material for the shock absorber to provide effective shock absorption. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (KR 20060113126 A) in view of Kim (KR 100959670 B1)
Regarding claim 16, Min discloses a magnetic outsole (a combination of soles 42, 44, capable of being used as an outer sole; figs. 3a-4b; see English translation; p. 11, paras. 1-2; p. 15, para. 1) comprising
a flexible matrix (sole 42 made of a resilient synthetic resin material; p. 15, para. 1) comprising a resilient material (as discussed above) and
a plurality of solid magnets (magnets 10A-10C in a first magnet assembly 10; figs. 1, 4a-4b; p. 15, para. 1),
wherein the resilient material is bonded directly to outer surfaces of the plurality of solid magnets (as the magnets 10A-10C are integrally molded with the sole 42, therefore are directly bonded within the sole 42; see fig. 4b and annotated fig. 4a; p. 16, para. 2), and
wherein the plurality of solid magnets each comprise a magnet body (figs. 1, 4a-4b).
Min does not explicitly disclose a bonded coating of an epoxy material being on the surface of the magnet body. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a neodymium magnet is one of the most commonly used permanent magnets. In addition, Kim, in an analogous art, teaches a magnetic sole (figs. 1a, 1b; see English translation; p. 10, para. 1; p. 11, para. 1) comprising a plurality of magnets (neodymium magnets 12b, 22b; figs. 1a, 1b; p. 10, para. 1; p. 11, para. 1) each comprise a magnet body (figs. 1a, 1b) and a bonded coating of an epoxy material on the surface of the magnet body (an epoxy coating; p. 4, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the plurality of magnets as disclosed by Min, with wherein the plurality of magnets comprise neodymium magnets and a bonded coating of an epoxy material on the surface of each of the magnet bodies as taught by Kim, in order to prevent moisture penetration thereby maintaining strong magnetic force of the plurality of magnets even in humid environments (Kim; p. 4, para. 2).
Min discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for wherein the magnetic force exerted by the plurality of magnet bodies of the entire shoe is from 300 Newtons (N) to 3,000 N. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a plurality of neodymium magnets are capable of exerting a magnetic force from 300 Newtons (N) to 3,000 N. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the plurality of magnets, wherein the magnetic force exerted by the plurality of magnet bodies of the entire shoe is from 300 Newtons (N) to 3,000 N, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Min does not disclose wherein the flexible and resilient material is selected from the group consisting of polyurethane rubber, styrene butadiene rubber, natural rubber, ethylene propylene diene terpolymer rubber, ethylene-vinyl acetate rubber, nitrile butadiene rubber, polychloroprene rubber, silicone rubber, and isoprene rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the flexible and resilient material as claimed, in order to provide a highly durable and resilient sole. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Min and Kim, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 16. As to the limitation the magnetic sole made by contacting the solid magnets with a flowable resin and encasing the solid magnets within the flowable resin, before the flowable resin is solidified into the resilient material, the limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the structure and material of the magnetic sole meets the claimed requirement.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2018/0055135 A1) and Min (KR 20060113126 A) and further in view of Kim (KR 100959670 B1)
Regarding claim 21, Donaldson and Min, in combination, disclose the magnetic sole of Claim 6, and Donaldson further discloses wherein the at least one magnet comprises a magnet body (figs. 3-6).
Donaldson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one magnet comprises a bonded coating of an epoxy material on the surface of the magnet body. However, Donaldson does disclose wherein the at least one magnet is a neodymium magnet (para. 0053). Further, Kim, in an analogous art, teaches a magnetic sole (figs. 1a, 1b; see English translation; p. 10, para. 1; p. 11, para. 1) comprising at least one magnet (neodymium magnets 12b, 22b; figs. 1a, 1b; p. 10, para. 1; p. 11, para. 1) comprises a magnet body (figs. 1a, 1b) and a bonded coating of an epoxy material on the surface of the magnet body (an epoxy coating; p. 4, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the at least one magnet as disclosed by Donaldson, with wherein the at least one magnet comprises a bonded coating of an epoxy material on the surface of the magnet body as taught by Kim, in order to prevent moisture penetration thereby maintaining strong magnetic force even in humid environments (Kim; p. 4, para. 2).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered. Most of Applicant's arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra. Applicant's other arguments are addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to claim 7, Applicant asserts that Nakanishi does not teach, suggest, or make obvious or predictable, forming the nonwoven within the body of either an outer sole or a midsole, and the rejection does not identify any disclosure within Nakanishi that provides a motivation to instead in-mold the nonwoven within the resilient material of Donaldson.
Examiner's response: It is respectfully noted that claim 7 does not require forming the nonwoven within the body of either an outer sole or a midsole, or in-molding the nonwoven within the resilient material. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732