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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 1/29/2026, claims 1, 11, 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), but not all of them, and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, Applicant submits that the terms “substantially”, “generally” and “continuous circle perimeter” have been deleted from the claims and the rejections are therefore overcome. However, the phrase “generally linear path” has not been deleted from claim 1, therefore the rejection regarding that terminology has been maintained for claim 1.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the currently relied upon references, Clarke and Allard, do not teach the newly added limitations “wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Allard teaches the newly added limitations. As shown in figure 4 of Allard (see below), the lateral side of the opening appears to be larger (i.e., have a greater surface area) than the medial side. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the newly added claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
621
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from the independent claims; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, the independent claims are not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure” (claims 1, 11, 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that there is no clear center line or dividing line between the lateral and medial sides in figures 10a, 10b, so it is not clear that the lateral side of the void has a greater surface area than the medial side of the void in the figures. Based on the information that can be gleaned from the figures at present, the void even appears as though it may be shifted more toward the medial side in figures 10a, 10b (see annotated figures below), which would result in the medial side having a greater surface area, not the lateral side. Therefore, although Applicant has written support in the description for the claimed feature in paragraph 90, the feature is not adequately shown in the drawings.
PNG
media_image2.png
674
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 11, 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 21: “a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete…” should be “a medial side surface area
Claim 11, lines 15-16: “a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete…” should be “a medial side surface area
Claim 15, line 24: “a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete…” should be “a medial side surface area .
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a slit extending upward in a generally linear path”. The term “generally” is unclear because it is unclear how close to a straight, linear line the slit must be. Examiner notes that the slit in figure 10a and 10b appears to be not merely a straight line but more of a wedge shape as the base of the slit (where it connects with the circular opening part) appears to be thinner than the upper end of the slit (at the upper portion of the sidewall), which adds to the confusion about what kind of shape constitutes a “generally linear path”.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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) 1-8, 10-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke (US 2005/0188562) in view of Allard (US 2006/0236564).
Regarding claim 1, Clarke discloses: A footwear structure comprising: an outer cage component that includes: (i) an outsole portion (outsole 16), and (ii) an upper portion (cage 12), the outer cage component defining an interior chamber (see figure 15 which shows the cage 12 and outsole 16 form an interior chamber into which the user’s foot can be placed); an inner upper component (slipper 14) that defines a foot-receiving chamber including a bottom surface, a heel-containing region, a midfoot-containing region, and a forefoot-containing region (see figure 18 which shows the how the slipper 14 has a bottom surface, heel-containing region, midfoot-containing region, and forefoot-containing region); and a foot support component (insole 18) releasably engaged with the outer cage component and the inner upper component to form the footwear structure (see figure 18 which is “a cross section of shoe 10 in one fully-assembled configuration” which includes the outer cage, inner upper component, and footwear component (paragraph 46); paragraph 43 also states “various combinations of cage 12, outsole 16, slipper 14 and insole 18 provide a wearer with footwear suitable for different circumstances” which indicates that they are releasably engaged with each other as the user can reconfigure the parts to achieve different combinations), with the inner upper component fitting inside the outer cage component (see figure 18), the foot support component comprising: a top surface for supporting an entire plantar surface of a wearer's foot (see figure 9 showing the top surface of the insole 18); a bottom surface (lower surface 38) opposite the top surface; and an integrally formed heel counter structure extending from the top surface at a heel region of the foot support component, the heel counter structure including a sidewall defined by a lateral sidewall, a medial sidewall, and a rear sidewall formed between the lateral sidewall and the medial sidewall (see figure 9 annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
421
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 9 of Clarke showing the lateral, medial, and rear sidewall on the insole
Clarke does not explicitly disclose: the heel counter structure further including a void structure formed in the sidewall, the void structure defined by one or more of openings, voids, or grooves, wherein the void structure includes a discrete, localized void formed by a circular opening and a slit extending upward in a generally linear path from the circular opening towards an upper portion of the sidewall, wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure.
However, Allard teaches a foot support component (10) comprising an integrally formed heel counter structure extending from the top surface at a heel region of the foot support component, the heel counter structure including a sidewall defined by a lateral sidewall, a medial sidewall, and a rear sidewall formed between the lateral sidewall and the medial sidewall (see annotated figure 1 below showing the lateral, medial, and rear sidewalls), the heel counter structure further including a void structure (22) formed in the sidewall, the void structure defined by one or more of openings, voids, or grooves, wherein the void structure includes a discrete, localized void formed by a circular opening and a slit extending upward in a generally linear path from the circular opening towards an upper portion of the sidewall (see annotated figure 1 below showing the circular opening and slit), wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure (see annotated figure 4 below showing the lateral side of the opening appears to be larger than the medial side of the opening, meaning lateral side of the opening has greater surface area than the medial side of the opening).
PNG
media_image4.png
471
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
621
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allard teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the notch (circular opening and slit), as taught by Allard, to the rear sidewall of the heel counter of Clarke in order to allow a “thinner orthotic rear portion configuration, since [the user’s] heel is effectively allowed to partly engage notch 22, and thus a thinner rear portion of orthotic 10 is located between heel and the footwear sole inner wall”, therefore making the insole of Clarke “less cumbersome inside the footwear, hence a greater comfort for the person wearing [the insole]” (Allard, paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 2, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 1, wherein the void structure is located only on the rear sidewall (see figure 1 of Allard provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the void structure (circular opening and slit) is located only on the rear sidewall).
Regarding claim 3, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 1, wherein the foot support component is formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (see figure 9 of Clarke showing the insole 18 is a unitary, one-piece construction; Examiner notes that even as modified to have the notch structure as taught by Allard, the insole would still be a unitary, one piece construction).
Regarding claim 4, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 1, wherein the opening and the slit are located on the rear sidewall (see figure 1 of Allard provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the void structure (circular opening and slit) is located on the rear sidewall).
Regarding claim 5, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 1, wherein the bottom surface of the foot support component includes a plurality of cleat inserts (Clarke, protrusions 36).
Regarding claim 6, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 5, wherein one or more of the plurality of cleat inserts is configured to extend into a corresponding one of a plurality of recesses (Clarke, depressions 34) defined in the outsole portion of the outer cage component (“distributed across upper surface 26 are multiple depressions 34. Depressions 34 correspond to protrusions 36 on lower surface 38 (FIG. 11) of insole 18. In one configuration, insole 18 nests within the region of outsole 16 formed by upper surface 26 and lip 32. In this configuration, protrusions 36 fit within depressions 34”, Clarke, paragraph 40; see figures 18 and 18A).
Regarding claim 7, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 6, wherein the outsole portion includes a plurality of cleat shells (Clarke, lugs 20).
Regarding claim 8, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 7, wherein the interior chamber includes a footbed portion formed by an interior surface of the outsole portion (Clarke, upper surface 26), the footbed portion including the plurality of recesses (“distributed across upper surface 26 are multiple depressions 34” Clarke, paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 10, Clarke as modified is silent as to the exact size of the circular opening and slit, and therefore does not explicitly disclose: The footwear structure according to claim 1, wherein the opening and the slit define a surface area within a range of approximately 500 mm2 to 1,500 mm2.
However, Allard does state, “the orthotic rear portion 14 engages the foot heel portion, with partial engagement of the heel inside notch 22” (paragraph 40). It is well known and understood that different people have differently sized feet, and therefore differently sized heels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the notch as taught by Allard with a surface area within a range of approximately 500 mm2 to 1,500 mm2 because the particular size of the notch is a result-effective variable that is dependent upon the particular size of a user’s heel. Further, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed range, as the instant specification in paragraph 96 states multiple different ranges for the surface area, so it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the notch as taught by Allard with a surface area within a range of approximately 500 mm2 to 1,500 mm2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, and 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). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Moreover, changing the size of the notch in this case would result in improved customization and comfort for the user because the notch could be tailored to their exact heel size.
Regarding claim 11, Clarke discloses: A foot support component (insole 18) configured to releasably engage with an outer cage component and an inner upper component to form an article of footwear (see figure 18 which is “a cross section of shoe 10 in one fully-assembled configuration” which includes the outer cage, inner upper component, and footwear component (paragraph 46); paragraph 43 also states “various combinations of cage 12, outsole 16, slipper 14 and insole 18 provide a wearer with footwear suitable for different circumstances” which indicates that they are releasably engaged with each other as the user can reconfigure the parts to achieve different combinations), the outer cage component including an outsole portion (outsole 16) and an upper portion (cage 12), with the inner upper component fitting inside the outer cage component (see figure 18), the foot support component comprising: a top surface for supporting an entire plantar surface of a wearer's foot (see figure 9 showing the top surface of insole 18); a bottom surface (lower surface 38) opposite the top surface; and an integrally formed heel counter structure extending from the top surface at a heel region of the foot support component, the heel counter structure including a sidewall having a lateral sidewall, a medial sidewall, and a rear sidewall extending between the lateral sidewall and the medial sidewall (see figure 9 annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Clarke does not explicitly disclose: the heel counter structure further including a void structure formed in the sidewall, the void structure defined by one or more of openings, voids, or grooves, wherein the void structure includes a discrete, localized void formed by a circular opening and a slit extending upward in a linear path from the circular opening towards an upper portion of the sidewall, wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure.
However, Allard teaches a foot support component (10) comprising an integrally formed heel counter structure extending from the top surface at a heel region of the foot support component, the heel counter structure including a sidewall defined by a lateral sidewall, a medial sidewall, and a rear sidewall formed between the lateral sidewall and the medial sidewall (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the lateral, medial, and rear sidewalls), the heel counter structure further including a void structure (22) formed in the sidewall, the void structure defined by one or more of openings, voids, or grooves, wherein the void structure includes a discrete, localized void formed by a circular opening and a slit extending upward in a linear path from the circular opening towards an upper portion of the sidewall (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the circular opening and slit), wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure (see annotated figure 4 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the lateral side of the opening appears to be larger than the medial side of the opening, meaning lateral side of the opening has greater surface area than the medial side of the opening).
Allard teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the notch (circular opening and slit), as taught by Allard, to the rear sidewall of the heel counter of Clarke in order to allow a “thinner orthotic rear portion configuration, since [the user’s] heel is effectively allowed to partly engage notch 22, and thus a thinner rear portion of orthotic 10 is located between heel and the footwear sole inner wall”, therefore making the insole of Clarke “less cumbersome inside the footwear, hence a greater comfort for the person wearing [the insole]” (Allard, paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 12, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 11, wherein the foot support component is formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (see figure 9 of Clarke showing the insole 18 is a unitary, one-piece construction; Examiner notes that even as modified to have the notch structure as taught by Allard, the insole would still be a unitary, one piece construction).
Regarding claim 13, Clarke as modified discloses: The foot support component according to claim 11, wherein the void structure is located only on the rear sidewall (see figure 1 of Allard provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the void structure (circular opening and slit) is located only on the rear sidewall).
Regarding claim 14, Clarke as modified discloses: The foot support component according to claim 11, wherein the opening and the slit are located on the rear sidewall (see figure 1 of Allard provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the void structure (circular opening and slit) is located on the rear sidewall).
Regarding claim 15, Clarke discloses: A footwear structure comprising: an outer cage component that includes: (i) an outsole portion (outsole 16) including a plurality of cleat shells (lugs 20), and (ii) an upper portion (cage 12), the outer cage component defining an interior chamber (see figure 15 which shows the cage 12 and outsole 16 form an interior chamber into which the user’s foot can be placed); an inner upper component (slipper 14) that defines a foot-receiving chamber including a bottom surface, a heel-containing region, a midfoot-containing region, and a forefoot-containing region (see figure 18 which shows the how the slipper 14 has a bottom surface, heel-containing region, midfoot-containing region, and forefoot-containing region); and a foot support component (insole 18) releasably engaged with the outer cage component and the inner upper component to form the footwear structure (see figure 18 which is “a cross section of shoe 10 in one fully-assembled configuration” which includes the outer cage, inner upper component, and footwear component (paragraph 46); paragraph 43 also states “various combinations of cage 12, outsole 16, slipper 14 and insole 18 provide a wearer with footwear suitable for different circumstances” which indicates that they are releasably engaged with each other as the user can reconfigure the parts to achieve different combinations), with the inner upper component fitting inside the outer cage component (see figure 18), the foot support component comprising: a top surface for supporting an entire plantar surface of a wearer's foot (see figure 9 showing the top surface of the insole 18); a bottom surface (lower surface 38) opposite the top surface, wherein the bottom surface includes a plurality of cleat inserts (protrusions 36), wherein one or more of the plurality of cleat inserts is configured to extend into a corresponding one of a plurality of recesses (depressions 34) defined in the outsole portion of the outer cage component (“insole 18 nests within the region of outsole 16 formed by upper surface 26 and lip 32. In this configuration, protrusions 36 fit within depression 34” paragraph 40); and an integrally formed heel counter structure extending from the top surface at a heel region of the foot support component, the heel counter structure including a sidewall defined by a lateral sidewall, a medial sidewall, and a rear sidewall formed between the lateral sidewall and the medial sidewall (see annotated figure 9 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Clarke does not explicitly disclose: the heel counter structure further including a void structure formed in the sidewall, the void structure defined by one or more of openings, voids, or grooves, wherein the void structure includes a discrete, localized void formed by a circular opening and a slit extending upward in a linear path from the circular opening towards an upper portion of the sidewall, wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure.
However, Allard teaches a foot support component (10) comprising an integrally formed heel counter structure extending from the top surface at a heel region of the foot support component, the heel counter structure including a sidewall defined by a lateral sidewall, a medial sidewall, and a rear sidewall formed between the lateral sidewall and the medial sidewall (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the lateral, medial, and rear sidewalls), the heel counter structure further including a void structure (22) formed in the sidewall the void structure defined by one or more of openings, voids, or grooves, wherein the void structure includes a discrete, localized void formed by a circular opening and a slit extending upward in a linear path from the circular opening towards an upper portion of the sidewall (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the circular opening and slit), wherein a lateral side surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure is greater than a medial side surface area surface area of the discrete, localized void of the heel counter structure (see annotated figure 4 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the lateral side of the opening appears to be larger than the medial side of the opening, meaning lateral side of the opening has greater surface area than the medial side of the opening).
Allard teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the notch (circular opening and slit), as taught by Allard, to the rear sidewall of the heel counter of Clarke in order to allow a “thinner orthotic rear portion configuration, since [the user’s] heel is effectively allowed to partly engage notch 22, and thus a thinner rear portion of orthotic 10 is located between heel and the footwear sole inner wall”, therefore making the insole of Clarke “less cumbersome inside the footwear, hence a greater comfort for the person wearing [the insole]” (Allard, paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 16, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 15, wherein the foot support component is formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (see figure 9 of Clarke showing the insole 18 is a unitary, one-piece construction; Examiner notes that even as modified to have the notch structure as taught by Allard, the insole would still be a unitary, one piece construction).
Regarding claim 17, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 15, wherein the interior chamber includes a footbed portion formed by an interior surface of the outsole portion (Clarke, upper surface 26), the footbed portion including the plurality of recesses (“distributed across upper surface 26 are multiple depressions 34” Clarke, paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 19, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 15, wherein the opening and the slit are located on the rear sidewall (see figure 1 of Allard provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the void structure (circular opening and slit) is located on the rear sidewall).
Regarding claim 20, Clarke as modified is silent as to the exact size of the circular opening and slit, and therefore does not explicitly disclose: The footwear structure according to claim 15, wherein the opening and the slit define a surface area within a range of approximately 500 mm2 to 1,500 mm2.
However, Allard does state, “the orthotic rear portion 14 engages the foot heel portion, with partial engagement of the heel inside notch 22” (paragraph 40). It is well known and understood that different people have differently sized feet, and therefore differently sized heels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the notch as taught by Allard with a surface area within a range of approximately 500 mm2 to 1,500 mm2 because the particular size of the notch is a result-effective variable that is dependent upon the particular size of a user’s heel. Further, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed range, as the instant specification in paragraph 96 states multiple different ranges for the surface area, so it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the notch as taught by Allard with a surface area within a range of approximately 500 mm2 to 1,500 mm2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, and 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). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Moreover, changing the size of the notch in this case would result in improved customization and comfort for the user because the notch could be tailored to their exact heel size.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke/Allard and further in view of Einstein, Jr. (US 3538628), hereinafter “Einstein”.
Regarding claim 9, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 8, wherein one or more of the plurality of recesses extends into an interior of a respective one of the plurality of cleat shells (“depressions 34 are generally aligned with corresponding lugs 20 (as shown in FIGS. 18 and 18A)” Clarke, paragraph 46).
Clarke as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein one or more of the plurality of recesses defines an undercut within an interior of one or more of the plurality of cleat shells.
However, Einstein teaches: a footbed portion formed by an interior surface of an outsole portion , the footbed portion including a plurality of recesses (apertures 42), wherein one or more of the plurality of recesses defines an undercut within an interior of the outsole portion (see figure 2, which shows how the apertures 42 include an undercut that accommodates the enlarged head portion 40; “the securement means 26 may comprise a plurality of stud members 38 having enlarged head portions 40 depending from the upper portion 30 with the core portion 34 of the lower portion 24 being provided with mating apertures 42” column 3, lines 38-43).
Einstein teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the protrusions and depressions of Clarke in the shape of the securing means (with the protrusions having an enlarged head portion and the depressions having a corresponding mating shape including an undercut portion) taught by Einstein so that “even during flexing of the assembly, the upper and lower portions would remain secured together” (Einstein, column 3, lines 46-47), which would lead to increased comfort and ease of use of the shoe since the insole and outsole would remain secured together even while walking. Examiner notes that the undercut portions would be located within the interior of the cleat shells (lugs 20 of Clarke) because that is where the depressions (34 of Clarke) were already located, and the modification does not change their location.
Regarding claim 18, Clarke as modified discloses: The footwear structure according to claim 17, wherein one or more of the plurality of recesses extends into an interior of a respective one of the plurality of cleat shells (“depressions 34 are generally aligned with corresponding lugs 20 (as shown in FIGS. 18 and 18A)” Clarke, paragraph 46).
Clarke as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein one or more of the plurality of recesses defines an undercut within an interior of one or more of the plurality of cleat shells.
However, Einstein teaches: a footbed portion formed by an interior surface of an outsole portion , the footbed portion including a plurality of recesses (apertures 42), wherein one or more of the plurality of recesses defines an undercut within an interior of the outsole portion (see figure 2, which shows how the apertures 42 include an undercut that accommodates the enlarged head portion 40; “the securement means 26 may comprise a plurality of stud members 38 having enlarged head portions 40 depending from the upper portion 30 with the core portion 34 of the lower portion 24 being provided with mating apertures 42” column 3, lines 38-43).
Einstein teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the protrusions and depressions of Clarke in the shape of the securing means (with the protrusions having an enlarged head portion and the depressions having a corresponding mating shape including an undercut portion) taught by Einstein so that “even during flexing of the assembly, the upper and lower portions would remain secured together” (Einstein, column 3, lines 46-47), which would lead to increased comfort and ease of use of the shoe since the insole and outsole would remain secured together even while walking. Examiner notes that the undercut portions would be located within the interior of the cleat shells (lugs 20 of Clarke) because that is where the depressions (34 of Clarke) were already located, and the modification does not change their location.
Conclusion
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
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights