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 .
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Maestrini (US Pub. 2006/0162296 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maestrini discloses an equine shoe comprising:
a polymer upper portion; a polymer sole joined to the upper portion (Pg. 2, [0029]: “On the inner surface of the sole 21 there can also be at least partially formed or attached a structure 26, for example in the form of grooves, serration or nubs, to promote air flow. A structure of this type prevents slipping or twisting of the hoof within the hoofshoe”);
and a proximal bridge embedded in the sole (Fig. 4, the bottom of the shoe comprises a plurality of bridge portions), the proximal bridge having a first tee nut, the first tee nut defining a passageway adapted to receive a traction spike (Pg. 2, [0025]: “On its bottom surface the sole 21 of the protecting portion 20 in FIG. 2 can also have different profiles which can be selected according to the surface conditions, time of the year, and riding style. A possibility for a preferred profile 40 is shown in FIG. 4. Specifically, threads 41 can be for example added for the installation of cleats and/or means 42 can be provided for the installation of metal pins such as spikes. Preferably, so-called spikes are cast into the sole during the manufacturing process. In order to keep abrasion at a minimum, the sole 21 is preferably made from a strong material, preferably a hard plastic, for example polyurethane PU having an abrasion resistance with a Shore hardness of 80-100 A. Soles can be manufactured according to need for individual fields of application such as for example for surmner (without spikes) or winter requirements or for jumping”).
Regarding claim 2, Maestrini discloses a lateral bridge embedded in the sole; the lateral bridge having a second tee nut, the second tee nut defining a passageway adapted to receive a traction spike (See id).
Regarding claim 3, Maestrini discloses a traction spike attached to the proximal bridge (See id).
Regarding claim 4, Maestrini discloses a traction spike joined to the lateral bridge (See id).
Regarding claim 5, Maestrini discloses wherein the first tee nut has a threaded region adapted to threadedly engage a traction spike (See id).
Regarding claim 6, Maestrini discloses wherein the second tee nut has a threaded region adapted to threadedly engage a traction spike (See id).
Regarding claim 7, Maestrini discloses a first cuff extending from the polymer upper portion (Fig. 2, left side of cap 22).
Regarding claim 8, Maestrini discloses a second cuff extending from the polymer upper portion (Fig. 2, right side of cap 22).
Regarding claim 10, Maestrini discloses wherein the first and second cuffs each include a proximal carveout (Fig. 2b, each side of the cuff has a carve out near the back of the shoe).
Regarding claim 17, Maestrini discloses an equine shoe comprising:
a polymer upper portion; a polymer sole bonded to the upper portion (Pg. 2, [0029]: “On the inner surface of the sole 21 there can also be at least partially formed or attached a structure 26, for example in the form of grooves, serration or nubs, to promote air flow. A structure of this type prevents slipping or twisting of the hoof within the hoofshoe”);
and a proximal bridge embedded in the sole (Pg. 2, [0029]: “On the inner surface of the sole 21 there can also be at least partially formed or attached a structure 26, for example in the form of grooves, serration or nubs, to promote air flow. A structure of this type prevents slipping or twisting of the hoof within the hoofshoe”), a first threaded tee nut and a second threaded tee nut, the first and second tee nuts being attached to the proximal bridge (Pg. 2, [0025]: “On its bottom surface the sole 21 of the protecting portion 20 in FIG. 2 can also have different profiles which can be selected according to the surface conditions, time of the year, and riding style. A possibility for a preferred profile 40 is shown in FIG. 4. Specifically, threads 41 can be for example added for the installation of cleats and/or means 42 can be provided for the installation of metal pins such as spikes. Preferably, so-called spikes are cast into the sole during the manufacturing process. In order to keep abrasion at a minimum, the sole 21 is preferably made from a strong material, preferably a hard plastic, for example polyurethane PU having an abrasion resistance with a Shore hardness of 80-100 A. Soles can be manufactured according to need for individual fields of application such as for example for surmner (without spikes) or winter requirements or for jumping”);
a first lateral bridge embedded in the polymer sole; a third threaded tee nut and a fourth threaded tee nut, the third and fourth nuts being attached to the first lateral bridge (See id);
a second lateral bridge embedded in the polymer sole; and a fifth threaded tee nut and a sixth threaded tee nut, the fifth and sixth nuts being attached to the second lateral bridge (See id).
Regarding claim 18, Maestrini discloses a traction spike threadedly engaged with one of the tee nuts (See id. Threads 41 are used for engaging a spike or cleat).
Regarding claim 20, Maestrini discloses a first cuff extending from the polymer upper portion and a second cuff extending from the polymer upper portion (Fig. 2, left and right sides of cap 22).
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) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maestrini (US Pub. 2006/0162296 A1) in view of Ford (US Pub. 2024/0358010 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Maestrini discloses wherein the first and second cuffs each have a passageway (Fig. 2, notches 24). However, Maestrini fails to disclose as taught by Ford, similarly drawn to an equine shoe, wherein the first and second cuffs each have a plurality of passageways (Fig. 1, lateral wall holes 90).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equine shoe of Maestrini to include the plurality of passageways as taught by Ford for improved ventilation and hygiene.
Regarding claim 11, Maestrini discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ford, similarly drawn to an equine shoe, wherein the first and second cuffs each include a distal carveout (Fig. 1, distal cut out 70).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equine shoe of Maestrini to include the two cuff sections and distal cutout as taught by Ford for improved ventilation and hygiene as well as flexibility of the cuff.
Claim(s) 12-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maestrini (US Pub. 2006/0162296 A1) in view of Mahidhara (US Pub. 2014/0374124 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Maestrini discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Mahidhara, similarly drawn to an equine shoe, wherein the sole has a plurality of sole passageways extending through a periphery of the sole, and wherein the upper portion is bonded to such passageways (Fig. 1, a plurality of nail holes 107 are disposed around the perimeter of the horseshoe extending through multiple layers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equine shoe of Maestrini to include the passageways of Mahidhara to allow for nailing the equine show to the horse’s hoof.
Regarding claim 13, Maestrini as modified by Mahidhara discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Mahidhara, wherein the sole has a plurality of pegs, the pegs extending the sole, and wherein the upper portion is bonded to such pegs (Fig. 1, ridges 112’).
Regarding claim 19, Maestrini discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Mahidhara, similarly drawn to an equine shoe, a plurality of passageways through the sole (Fig. 1, a plurality of nail holes 107 are disposed around the perimeter of the horseshoe extending through multiple layers) and a plurality of pegs extending from the sole, the polymer upper being bonded through the plurality of passageways through the sole and to the pegs (Fig. 1, ridges 112’).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equine shoe of Maestrini to include the passageways and pegs of Mahidhara to allow for nailing the equine show to the horse’s hoof. The pegs also allow for better adhesion of the various shoe layers to each other.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maestrini (US Pub. 2006/0162296 A1) in view of Ford (US Pub. 2024/0324573 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Maestrini discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ford, similarly drawn to an equine shoe, wherein the sole has a frog support (Fig. 1, skirt 50. Pg. 1, [0008], lines 1-6: “In one embodiment, the shoe includes a platform with lateral walls. The lateral walls have proximal and distal cutouts or recesses, which improve adherence and fit. Additionally, the platform has a proximal end, a distal end and a skirt therebetween. The skirt forms a segmented arch and void shaped to receive the frog of the horse hoof”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equine shoe of Maestrini to include the frog support of Ford for improved comfort of the horse.
Regarding claim 15, Maestrini as modified by Ford discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Ford, wherein the frog support has a frog support passageway (Fig. 1, skirt 50 has an opening in its center).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maestrini (US Pub. 2006/0162296 A1) in view of Ford (US Pub. 2014/0231100 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Maestrini discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ford, similarly drawn to an equine shoe, wherein the lateral bridge has a lateral bridge passageway (Fig. 3, notches 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equine shoe of Maestrini to include the passageway of Ford for improved traction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642