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 .
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 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beers (10568385).
Beers ‘385 shows (see specifically figures 11-14) An article of footwear comprising:
a sole (434); and
an upper (438) attached to said sole; and
a heel support (410) attached to the upper, said heel support including a wall extending
between a medial side and a lateral side of said sole (418 and 420), said wall extending continuously from a top end to a bottom end of said heel support (since the heel support is a single continuous piece it inherently extends from the top end to the bottom end of itself) and including at least one flex point to enable the heel support to move between a non-flexed position and a flexed position (see column 5 line 45- column 6 line 5), wherein pressure against the heel support causes the heel support to move to the flexed position, and wherein the heel support moves back to the non-flexed position when the pressure is released from the heel support as claimed.
In reference to claims 2 and 3, see figure 14 which shows an angle of about 30 degrees which is in the range claimed.
In reference to claim 4, Beers shows a main member (410) having medial/lateral members (418 and 420).
In reference to claims 5 and 16, see front of 435A which is considered to be a tongue.
In reference to claims 13-15, see above and figures 11-14 which show such.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 13-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farina (2024/0122300).
Farina shows An article of footwear comprising:
a sole (124); and
an upper (106) attached to said sole; and
a heel support (102) attached to the upper, said heel support including a wall extending
between a medial side and a lateral side of said sole, said wall extending continuously from a top
end to a bottom end of said heel support (since the heel support is a single continuous piece it inherently extends from the top end to the bottom end of itself) and including at least one flex point to enable the heel support to move between a non-flexed position and a flexed position (see paragraph [0027]), wherein pressure against the heel support causes the heel support to move to the flexed position, and wherein the heel support moves back to the non-flexed position when the pressure is released from the heel support as claimed.
In reference to claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19, see below marked up figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 4 and 13, see figure 5 which shows medial and lateral members as claimed. In reference to a midsole, Farina teaches a plurality of layers of sole (see paragraph [0030]). The top instep portion of the upper shown in figures is considered to be an “integrated tongue” inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 11-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kilgore (2023/0015860).
Kilgore ‘860 shows An article of footwear comprising:
a sole (53); and
an upper (52) attached to said sole; and
a heel support (10) attached to the upper, said heel support including a wall extending
between a medial side and a lateral side of said sole, said wall extending continuously from a top
end to a bottom end of said heel support (since the heel support is a single continuous piece it inherently extends from the top end to the bottom end of itself) and including at least one flex point to enable the heel support to move between a non-flexed position and a flexed position (as discussed in the specification), wherein pressure against the heel support causes the heel support to move to the flexed position, and wherein the heel support moves back to the non-flexed position when the pressure is released from the heel support as claimed.
In reference to claims 2, 3, 14, and 15, Kilgore shows an angle of about 35 degrees as shown in the figures.
In reference to claims 4 and 13, see figures which shows medial and lateral members as claimed. In reference to a midsole, Farina teaches a plurality of layers of sole (see paragraph [0082]). The top instep portion of the upper shown in figures 6 and 7 is considered to be an “integrated tongue” inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such.
In reference to claims 8, 9, and 19, Kilgore shows ridges (24A-D) one which extends greater (at 12A) as claimed.
In reference to claim 11, see page 5 second column lines 6-7 which suggests the use of thermoplastic polyurethane.
In reference to claim 12, Kilgore teaches placing heel support (10) between an inner layer (52A) and outer layer (52B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers ‘385, Farina, and/or Kilgore.
Beers ‘385 Farina, and/or Kilgore discloses the claimed invention except for the exact materials. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to use the claimed materials and/or materials with the claimed specific parameters, since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to applicants’ arguments directed towards the newly added phrase “heel support including a wall extending between a medial side and a lateral side of said sole, said wall extending continuously from a top end to a bottom end of said heel support” it is noted that the heel support in Beers, Farina, and/or Kilgore show the heel support having medial and lateral portion and since the heel support is a single continuous piece it inherently extends from the top end to the bottom end of itself inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such.
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.
The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
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.
In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet.
Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425.
/MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights