DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended, and Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 remain as previously presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 4, the limitation "the polymer of the sole" should read “the polymer sole” to keep the limitation consistent within the claim.
In Claim 7 Line 4, the limitation "the polymer of the sole" should read “the polymer sole” to keep the limitation consistent within the claim.
In Claim 14 Line 4, the limitation "the polymer of the sole" should read “the polymer sole” to keep the limitation consistent within the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) in view of Benning (US 4760885 A) and King (US 4580637 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Cisneros teaches an equine shoe (102; shown in Figs. 8-9) comprising:
A sole (shown in Fig. 9; Shoe 102 comprises a sole that receives cleat 60.) comprising:
A support bridge (Figs. 8-9 show that grooves 116 forms a support bridge that is embedded in the sole of shoe 102 that receives a cleat 60.);
A first hole (112), the first hole being connected to the support bridge (Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises a first hole 112.);
A second hole (112), the second tee nut being connected to the support bridge (Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises a second hole 112.);
A first fastener (124; Fig. 8, Column 7 Lines 55-65, and Column 8 Lines 25-35 show/state that a first nail 124 fastens a first cleat 60 to a first hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.);
A second fastener (124; Fig. 9 and Column 8 Lines 45-55 shows/states that a second nail 124 fastens first cleat 60 to a second hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.); and
A cleat (60; shown in Fig. 4A) comprising a bracket (Fig. 4A shows that walls 66,68 and middle portion 74 form a bracket.) and a wall (80) extending from the bracket (shown in Fig. 4A), the bracket being secured to the first hole with the first fastener and the second hole with the second fastener (Figs. 8-9 and Column 8 Lines 25-55 show/state that a first fastener 70 fastens a first cleat 60 to a first hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102 and a second fastener 124 fastens the first cleat 60 to a second hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.).
The system of Cisneros teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sole is a polymer sole. Benning teaches an equine shoe (shown in Fig. 4) comprising a polymer sole (13; Column 4 Lines 15-20 states that sole 13 is made of elastomeric rubber.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the sole of the system of Cisneros be a polymer sole as taught by Benning with reasonable expectation of success to provide a sole with superior shock absorption and pressure distribution, 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first and second holes are tee nuts. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the holes and nails fastening system of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning with tee nuts and fastening screws to provide better retention as well as an easier means of detachment for replacement, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning fails to explicitly state that the support bridge comprises one or more fenestrations, the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole.
King teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of King teaches a horseshoe (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a support bridge (1A) comprises one or more fenestrations (13), the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole (See Fig. 1; The fenestrations 13 are operably coupled to the polymer sole formed by segments 2B-2C and 3B-3C via joints. See also Column 4.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning to have the support bridge comprise one or more fenestrations, the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole as taught by King with reasonable expectation of success to help provide traction.
Regarding Claim 7, Cisneros teaches an equine shoe (102; shown in Figs. 8-9) comprising:
A sole (shown in Fig. 9; Shoe 102 comprises a sole that receives cleat 60.) comprising:
A support bridge (Figs. 8-9 show that a left groove 116 forms a first support bridge that is embedded in the sole of shoe 102 that receives a cleat 60.);
A first hole, the first hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises at least six holes that align with holes 72 of cleat 60. One of these holes can serve as a first hole 112.);
A second hole, the second hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises at least six holes that align with holes 72 of cleat 60. One of these holes can serve as a second hole 112.);
A third hole, the third hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises at least six holes that align with holes 72 of cleat 60. One of these holes can serve as a third hole 112.);
A fourth hole, the fourth hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises at least six holes that align with holes 72 of cleat 60. One of these holes can serve as a fourth hole 112.).
A first fastener (124; Fig. 8, Column 7 Lines 55-65, and Column 8 Lines 25-35 show/state that a first nail 124 fastens a first cleat 60 to a first hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.), a second fastener, a third fastener, and a fourth fastener (124; Fig. 9 and Column 8 Lines 45-55 shows/states that nails 124 fastens first cleat 60 to a second, third, and fourth holes 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.);
A cleat (60; shown in Fig. 4A) comprising a bracket (Fig. 4A shows that walls 66,68 and middle portion 74 form a bracket.), the bracket being secured to the first hole with the first fastener, the second fastener, the third fastener, and the fourth fastener (Figs. 8-9 and Column 8 Lines 25-55 show/state that the bracket is secured to the first hole 112 with the first fastener 124 as well as the second, third, and fourth fasteners 124.).
The system of Cisneros teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sole is a polymer sole. Benning teaches an equine shoe (shown in Fig. 4) comprising a polymer sole (13; Column 4 Lines 15-20 states that sole 13 is made of elastomeric rubber.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the sole of the system of Cisneros be a polymer sole as taught by Benning with reasonable expectation of success to provide a sole with superior shock absorption and pressure distribution, 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first, second, third, and fourth holes are tee nuts having threaded regions. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the holes and nails fastening system of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning with tee nuts having threaded regions and fastening screws to provide better retention as well as an easier means of detachment for replacement, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning fails to explicitly state that the support bridge comprises one or more fenestrations, the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole.
King teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of King teaches a horseshoe (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a support bridge (1A) comprises one or more fenestrations (13), the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole (See Fig. 1; The fenestrations 13 are operably coupled to the polymer sole formed by segments 2B-2C and 3B-3C via joints. See also Column 4.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning to have the support bridge comprise one or more fenestrations, the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole as taught by King with reasonable expectation of success to help provide traction.
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
Cisneros further teaches that a cleat (80) extending from the bracket (shown in Fig. 4A).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the cleat is frustoconical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the cleat of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King frustoconical to provide for rotational ability, increase comfort, and provide the desired traction needed for the ground upon which the horse traverses. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
Cisneros further teaches a wall extending from the bracket (Fig. 4A shows that a wall extends vertically from the end of section 68 of the bracket.).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first fastener, the second fastener, the third fastener, and the fourth fastener are traction spikes. Cisneros teaches that the first fastener (70) is a traction spike (shown in Figs. 4A-4B; Projection 70 comprises ridges 86 that provide traction [see Column 9 Lines 20-30].). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have all the fasteners of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King be traction spikes to provide anterior, posterior, and lateral traction and stability (Cisneros, Column 9 Lines 20-30), since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) as modified by Benning (US 4760885 A) and King (US 4580637 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kolonia (US 20050217870 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King fails to explicitly state that the equine shoe further comprises a frog support and a longitudinal support, the frog support extending from the sole, and the longitudinal support having one end attached to the frog support and another end attached to the sole.
Kolonia teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Kolonia teaches a horseshoe (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a frog support (5) and a longitudinal support (shown in Fig. 1; The horseshoe comprises a longitudinal support that splits membrane portion 4 in half.), the frog support (5) extending from the sole (Fig. 1 shows that the frog support 5 extends from the sole of the horseshoe.), and the longitudinal support having one end attached to the frog support and another end attached to the sole (Fig. 1 shows that the longitudinal support has one end attached to frog support 5 and another end attached to the sole of the horseshoe.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King to include a frog support and a longitudinal support, the frog support extending from the sole, and the longitudinal support having one end attached to the frog support and another end attached to the sole as taught by Kolonia with reasonable expectation of success to prevent snow, dirt, stones, and other objects from reaching or penetrating the sensitive area of the hoof (Kolonia, ¶38).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
Cisneros further teaches that the equine shoe (102; shown in Figs. 8-9) further comprises:
A third hole, the third hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show a third hole 112 that is connected to the support bridge.);
A fourth hole, the fourth hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show a fourth hole 112 that is connected to the support bridge.);
A third fastener (124; Fig. 8, Column 7 Lines 55-65, and Column 8 Lines 25-35 show/state that a third nail 124 fastens a second cleat 60 to a third hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.);
A fourth fastener (124; Fig. 9 and Column 8 Lines 45-55 shows/states that second nail 124 fastens second cleat 60 to a second hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.); and
A second cleat (Fig. 8 shows that horseshoe 102 comprises a second cleat 60 shown in Fig. 4A) comprising a second bracket (Fig. 4A shows that walls 66,68 and middle portion 74 of the second cleat 60 form a second bracket.) and a wall (80) extending from the second bracket (shown in Fig. 4A), the second bracket being secured to the third hole with the third fastener and the fourth hole with the fourth fastener (Figs. 8-9 and Column 8 Lines 25-55 show/state that a third fastener 70 fastens a second cleat 60 to a third hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102 and a fourth fastener 124 fastens the second cleat 60 to a fourth hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the third and fourth holes are tee nuts. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the holes and nails fastening system of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia with tee nuts and fastening screws to provide better retention as well as an easier means of detachment for replacement, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first fastener, the second fastener, the third fastener, and the fourth fastener are traction spikes. Cisneros teaches that the first and third fasteners (70) are traction spikes (shown in Figs. 4A-4B; Projection 70 comprises ridges 86 that provide traction [see Column 9 Lines 20-30].). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have all four fasteners of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia with traction spikes to provide anterior, posterior, and lateral traction and stability (Cisneros, Column 9 Lines 20-30), since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) as modified by Benning (US 4760885 A), King (US 4580637 A), and Kolonia (US 20050217870 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fruin (US 1889856 A).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
However, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia fails to explicitly state that the equine shoe further comprises a fifth tee nut embedded in the sole; a sixth tee nut embedded in the sole; a fifth traction spike connected to the fifth tee nut; and a sixth traction spike connected to the sixth tee nut.
Fruin teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 Lines 1-5 states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Fruin teaches a horseshoe (shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a fifth hole (18; Fig. 1 shows that the horseshoe comprises a left hole 18.) embedded in the sole (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 3 Lines 90-95; Fifth hole 18 is embedded in the sole of the horseshoe.); a sixth hole (18; Fig. 1 shows that the horseshoe comprises a right hole 18.) embedded in the sole (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 1 Lines 90-95; Sixth hole 18 is embedded in the sole of the horseshoe.); a fifth traction spike (22) connected to the fifth hole (Figs. 1-2 show that there’s a left traction spike 22 connected to the fifth left hole 18.); and a sixth traction spike (22) connected to the sixth hole (Figs. 1-2 show that there’s a right traction spike 22 connected to the sixth right hole 18.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia to include a fifth hole embedded in the sole; a sixth hole embedded in the sole; a fifth traction spike connected to the fifth hole; and a sixth traction spike connected to the sixth hole as taught by Fruin with reasonable expectation of success to provide the best toe traction to the animal when drawing a heavy load or climbing a hill (Fruin, Pg. 2 Lines 30-35).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, Kolonia, and Fruin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the fifth and sixth holes are tee nuts. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the fifth and sixth holes of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, Kolonia, and Fruin with tee nuts to provide better retention, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) as modified by Benning (US 4760885 A) and King (US 4580637 A) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Fruin (US 1889856 A).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King fails to explicitly state that the equine shoe further comprises a third tee nut embedded in the sole; a fourth tee nut embedded in the sole; a first traction spike connected to the third tee nut; and a second traction spike connected to the fourth tee nut.
Fruin teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 Lines 1-5 states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Fruin teaches a horseshoe (shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a third hole (18; Fig. 1 shows that the horseshoe comprises a left hole 18.) embedded in the sole (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 3 Lines 90-95; Left hole 18 is embedded in the sole of the horseshoe.); a fourth hole (18; Fig. 1 shows that the horseshoe comprises a right hole 18.) embedded in the sole (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 1 Lines 90-95; Right hole 18 is embedded in the sole of the horseshoe.); a first traction spike (22) connected to the third hole (Figs. 1-2 show that there’s a left traction spike 22 connected to the left hole 18.); and a second traction spike (22) connected to the fourth hole (Figs. 1-2 show that there’s a right traction spike 22 connected to the right hole 18.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King to include a third hole embedded in the sole; a fourth hole embedded in the sole; a first traction spike connected to the third hole; and a second traction spike connected to the fourth hole as taught by Fruin with reasonable expectation of success to provide the best toe traction to the animal when drawing a heavy load or climbing a hill (Fruin, Pg. 2 Lines 30-35).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the third and fourth holes are tee nuts. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the third and fourth holes of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin with tee nuts to provide better retention, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
However, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King fails to explicitly state that the equine shoe further comprises a fifth tee nut embedded in the sole; a sixth tee nut embedded in the sole; a fifth fastener, the fifth fastener connected to the fifth tee nut; and a sixth fastener, the sixth fastener connected to the sixth tee nut.
Fruin teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 Lines 1-5 states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Fruin teaches a horseshoe (shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a fifth hole (18; Fig. 1 shows that the horseshoe comprises a left hole 18.) embedded in the sole (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 3 Lines 90-95; Fifth hole 18 is embedded in the sole of the horseshoe.); a sixth hole (18; Fig. 1 shows that the horseshoe comprises a right hole 18.) embedded in the sole (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 1 Lines 90-95; Sixth hole 18 is embedded in the sole of the horseshoe.); a fifth fastener (22) connected to the fifth hole (Figs. 1-2 show that there’s a left traction spike 22 connected to the left hole 18.); and a sixth fastener (22) connected to the sixth hole (Figs. 1-2 show that there’s a right traction spike 22 connected to the right hole 18.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King to include a fifth hole embedded in the sole; a sixth hole embedded in the sole; a fifth fastener connected to the fifth hole; and a sixth fastener connected to the sixth hole as taught by Fruin with reasonable expectation of success to provide the best toe traction to the animal when drawing a heavy load or climbing a hill (Fruin, Pg. 2 Lines 30-35).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the fifth and sixth holes are tee nuts. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the fifth and sixth holes of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin with tee nuts to provide better retention, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 11.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin further teaches (references to Fruin) that the fifth and sixth fasteners (22) are traction spikes (Pg. 2 Lines 30-35 states that spikes 22 serve to provide traction.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) as modified by Benning (US 4760885 A), King (US 4580637 A), and Fruin (US 1889856 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Launey (US 0856848 A).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 11.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the fifth and sixth fasteners are bolts. Launey teaches a horseshoe (shown in Fig. 3) comprising fasteners (8) that are bolts (stated in Pg. 1 Lines 50-55). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the fifth and sixth fasteners of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Fruin with bolts because bolts provide a high load capacity as well as a secure and versatile fastening, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) in view of Benning (US 4760885 A), King (US 4580637 A), and Kolonia (US 20050217870 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Cisneros teaches an equine shoe (102; shown in Figs. 8-9) comprising:
A sole (shown in Fig. 9; Shoe 102 comprises a sole that receives cleat 60.) comprising:
A support bridge embedded in the sole (Figs. 8-9 show that a left groove 116 forms a first support bridge that is embedded in the sole of shoe 102 that receives a cleat 60.);
A first hole, the first hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises a first hole 112.);
A second hole, the second hole being connected to the support bridge (112; Figs. 8-9 show that the first support bridge 116 comprises a second hole 112.);
A first fastener (124; Fig. 8, Column 7 Lines 55-65, and Column 8 Lines 25-35 show/state that a first nail 124 fastens a first cleat 60 to a first hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.);
A second fastener (124; Fig. 9 and Column 8 Lines 45-55 shows/states that nails 124 fastens first cleat 60 to a second hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.); and
A cleat (60; shown in Fig. 4A) comprising a bracket (Fig. 4A shows that walls 66,68 and middle portion 74 form a bracket.) and a traction element extending from the bracket (shown in Figs. 4A-4B; Projection 70 comprises ridges 86 that provides traction [see Column 9 Lines 20-30] and extends from the bracket.), the bracket being secured to the first hole with the first fastener and the second hole with the second fastener (Figs. 8-9 and Column 8 Lines 25-55 show/state that a first fastener 124 fastens a first cleat 60 to a first hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102 and a second fastener 124 fastens the first cleat 60 to a second hole 112 in the sole of the shoe 102.).
The system of Cisneros teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sole is a polymer sole. Benning teaches an equine shoe (shown in Fig. 4) comprising a polymer sole (13; Column 4 Lines 15-20 states that sole 13 is made of elastomeric rubber.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the sole of the system of Cisneros be a polymer sole as taught by Benning with reasonable expectation of success to provide a sole with superior shock absorption and pressure distribution, 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first and second holes are tee nuts having threaded regions. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the holes and nails fastening system of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning with tee nuts having threaded regions and fastening screws to provide better retention as well as an easier means of detachment for replacement, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning fails to explicitly state that the support bridge comprises one or more fenestrations, the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole.
King teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of King teaches a horseshoe (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a support bridge (1A) comprises one or more fenestrations (13), the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole (See Fig. 1; The fenestrations 13 are operably coupled to the polymer sole formed by segments 2B-2C and 3B-3C via joints. See also Column 4.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning to have the support bridge comprise one or more fenestrations, the one or more fenestrations being operably coupled to the polymer of the sole as taught by King with reasonable expectation of success to help provide traction.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King fails to explicitly state that the equine shoe further comprises a frog support extending from the sole and a longitudinal support extending between the sole and the frog support.
Kolonia teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Kolonia teaches a horseshoe (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a frog support (5) extending from the sole (Fig. 1 shows that the frog support 5 extends from the sole of the horseshoe.) and a longitudinal support extending between the sole and the frog support (Fig. 1 shows that the longitudinal support has one end attached to frog support 5 and another end attached to the sole of the horseshoe.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King to include a frog support extending from the sole and a longitudinal support extending between the sole and the frog support as taught by Kolonia with reasonable expectation of success to prevent snow, dirt, stones, and other objects from reaching or penetrating the sensitive area of the hoof (Kolonia, ¶38).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the traction element is frustoconical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the traction element of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia frustoconical to provide for rotational ability, increase comfort, and provide the desired traction needed for the ground upon which the horse traverses. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
Cisneros further teaches that the traction element is a spike (Fig. 8 shows that projection 70 comprises ridges 86 that form a spike that provides traction [see Column 9 Lines 20-30].).
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the traction element is frustoconical cleat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the traction element of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia a frustoconical cleat to provide for rotational ability, increase comfort, and provide the desired traction needed for the ground upon which the horse traverses. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
The system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first and second fasteners are traction spikes. Cisneros teaches that the first fastener (70) is a traction spike (shown in Figs. 4A-4B; Projection 70 comprises ridges 86 that provide traction [see Column 9 Lines 20-30].). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have all the fasteners of the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia be traction spikes to provide anterior, posterior, and lateral traction and stability (Cisneros, Column 9 Lines 20-30), since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) as modified by Benning (US 4760885 A), King (US 4580637 A), and Kolonia (US 20050217870 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fruin (US 1889856 A).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
However, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia fails to explicitly state that the traction element is a curved wall.
Fruin teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 Lines 1-5 states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Fruin teaches a horseshoe (shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a traction element that is a curved wall (15; Fig. 2 shows that curved walls 15 extend from the sole of the horseshoe and are capable of providing traction.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning, King, and Kolonia to have the traction element be a curved wall as taught by Fruin with reasonable expectation of success to provide lateral traction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 6092605 A) as modified by Benning (US 4760885 A) and King (US 4580637 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paar (US 0624529 A).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King fails to explicitly state that at least one portion of the sole comprises treads, wherein the treads are integrated into the sole.
Paar teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 Lines 1-10 states that the invention is drawn to a horseshoe.), the system of Paar teaches a horseshoe (shown in the Figures) wherein at least a portion of the sole (2) comprises treads (shown in Figs. 4 and 6-7), wherein the treads are integrated into the sole (shown in Figs. 4 and 6-7; Treads are integrated into sole 2.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cisneros as modified by Benning and King to have at least one portion of the sole comprises treads, wherein the treads are integrated into the sole as taught by Paar with reasonable expectation of success to provide traction when the horse accelerates or breaks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights