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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11-19-2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “at least one of said air pockets is formed by a layer of material having a first thickness, while other air pockets are formed by a layer of material having a second thickness that is less than said first thickness” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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.
Claims 3-6 and 11-13 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 5 is rejected because it recites limitations “said synthetic rubber material” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In general, claims 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected because they define that synthetic rubber material is ethylene-vinyl acetate which according to one of ordinary skill in the art that ethylene-vinyl acetate is plastic.
For the express purpose of an examination on the merits, ethylene-vinyl acetate will be treated as synthetic rubber or thermoplastic rubber because applicant stated in the specification that ethylene-vinyl acetate is synthetic rubber or thermoplastic rubber.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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) 1-6 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen Jr, (4,774,774) in view of Schindler (7,707,743).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a multi-layer shock-absorbing cushion sole (figs 1-3) comprising: a top layer; a cushion layer attached to an underside of said top layer; a third layer attached to an underside of said cushion layer; and a bottom layer positioned on an underside of said third layer, said bottom layer including a tread pattern on an underside thereof; wherein said cushion layer includes a plurality of air pockets therein (fig 1 annotated above).
Schindler teaches a sole having at least one of said air pockets is formed by a layer of material having a first thickness, while other air pockets are formed by a layer of material having a second thickness that is less than said first thickness (col 7, lines 30-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Allen by using the different thickness of Schindler in order to provide a comfortable structure that is suited for a variety of ambulatory activities, such as walking and running.
Regarding claim 2, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said air pocket having said first thickness is positioned in a medial portion of said cushion layer to provide additional support for an arch of a wearer’s foot (Allen, fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said top layer is formed from a thermoplastic rubber material (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said cushion layer is formed from a synthetic rubber material (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said synthetic rubber material is ethylene-vinyl acetate (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said third layer is formed from a thermoplastic rubber material (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Allen teaches a multi-layer shock-absorbing cushion sole comprising: a top layer; a cushion layer attached to an underside of said top layer; a third layer attached to an underside of said cushion layer; and a bottom layer positioned on an underside of said third layer, said bottom layer including a tread pattern on an underside thereof; wherein said cushion layer includes a plurality of air pockets disposed therein (fig 1 annotated above).
Schindler teaches a sole comprising at least one of said air pockets is formed by first material, while other air pockets are formed by a second material that is different from said first material, wherein said first material comprises nylon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Allen by using the different material and nylon of Schindler in order to provide a comfortable structure that is suited for a variety of ambulatory activities, such as walking and running.
Regarding claim 11, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said top layer is formed from a thermoplastic rubber material (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said third layer is formed from a thermoplastic rubber material (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified sole Allen-Schindler discloses said top layer is formed from a thermoplastic rubber material (Allen, the entire sole is made of EVA, col 2, line 68 and col 3, line 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen Jr, (4,774,774) and Schindler (7,707,743), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yung-Mao (4,908,962).
Regarding claim 7, the modified sole Allen-Schindler does not teach said bottom layer is formed from natural rubber. Yung-Mao teaches a sole having a bottom layer (i.e. outsole) made of natural rubber (fig 1, member 14, col 2, lines 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Kita by using natural rubber bottom layer, as taught by Yung-Mao, because the material is durable and resilient.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen Jr, (4,774,774) and Schindler (7,707,743), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (2017/0127751).
Regarding claim 8, the modified sole Allen-Schindler does not teach said air pockets are open on either side of said multi-layer shock-absorbing cushion sole, so that air may freely flow into and out of said air pockets from surrounding atmosphere.
Kim teaches a sole having air pockets are open on either side of said multi-layer shock-absorbing cushion sole, so that air may freely flow into and out of said air pockets from surrounding atmosphere (fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Allen by adding an open side air pocket, as taught by Kim, in order to provide support for walking, shock absorption, and comfortable static support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, KHOA D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732