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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 05/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the nonelected species.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 AIA
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruce US 20140075777 A1 (herein after Bruce).
Regarding claim 1, Bruce discloses an article of footwear (Abstract) comprising: a strobel (paragraph 0062) including a shank (150, 1050 - the rigid plate in the arch region, the shank can be termed as the arch plate/ a rigid plate that covers the arch area, paragraph 0057) comprised of an elastomeric material (paragraph 0059 and 0053 – Pebax having elastomeric properties); and wherein the shank comprises an exterior surface of the strobel (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 2, Bruce discloses wherein: the shank (150) has a peripheral flange (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) defining an outer perimeter of the shank (paragraph 0031); the shank includes a central region (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) surrounded by the peripheral flange (as seen in annotated Figure 1A); and the central region and the peripheral flange are a monolithic structure (as seen in annotated Figure 1A).
[AltContent: textbox (A central region.)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A peripheral flange.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shank)]
PNG
media_image1.png
662
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bruce discloses wherein the central region is thicker than the peripheral flange (as seen in annotated Figure 10C).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wherein the central region is thicker than the peripheral flange.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
363
117
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bruce discloses wherein the shank has a peripheral flange defining an outer perimeter of the shank (1050, as seen in annotated Figure 10B – the rigid plate in the arch region), and the article of footwear further comprising: a footwear upper secured to the peripheral flange of the shank (paragraph 0105, as seen in annotated Figures 10B).
[AltContent: textbox (Shank)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
508
236
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Bruce discloses wherein: the shank (150, 1050) extends from a medial side of the footwear upper to a lateral side of the footwear upper (as seen in annotated Figures 10A and 10B); and the medial side of the footwear upper is secured to the peripheral flange of the shank at a medial side of the shank (paragraph 0062, as seen in annotated Figures 10A and 10B) and the lateral side of the footwear upper is secured to the peripheral flange of the shank at a lateral side of the shank (paragraph 0062, as seen in annotated Figures 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 7, Bruce discloses wherein the shank partially defines a medial extent of the strobel and a lateral extent of the strobel and extends continuously transversely from the medial extent to the lateral extent (paragraph 0062, as seen in annotated Figures 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 8, Bruce discloses wherein: the shank has a peripheral flange defining an outer perimeter of the shank (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) ; a proximal side of the peripheral flange is flat (paragraph 0031, as seen in annotated Figure 1A); and a distal side of the peripheral flange is flat (paragraph 0031, as seen in annotated Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Bruce discloses the shank has a peripheral flange (as seen in annotated Figure 1A ) defining an outer perimeter of the shank (as seen in annotated Figure 1A); the shank includes a central region (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) surrounded by the peripheral flange (as seen in annotated Figure 1A); the shank includes a central region surrounded by the peripheral flange; and a proximal side or a distal side of the shank includes a plurality of protruding ribs at the central region, a proximal side or a distal side of the shank (paragraph 0113) includes a plurality of protruding ribs at the central region (paragraph 0113).
Regarding claim 11, Bruce discloses wherein the protruding ribs (paragraph 0113 of Bruce) are linear and include at least one rib extending lengthwise in a fore-aft direction of the shank (paragraph 0113 of Bruce) and at least one rib extending lengthwise in a transverse direction of the shank (paragraph 0113 of Bruce).
Regarding claim 12, Bruce discloses further comprising: a foam midsole (paragraph 0005) component; and adhesive securing the shank to the foam midsole component (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 13, Bruce discloses wherein the adhesive is disposed on a distal side of the shank (paragraphs 0053, 0054 and 0062) and on a proximal side of the foam midsole component (paragraphs 0053, 0054 and 0062) such that the proximal side of the foam midsole component underlies and is secured to the distal side of the shank (paragraphs 0053, 0054 and 0062).
Regarding claim 18, Bruce discloses wherein the shank extends in at least one of a forefoot region or a midfoot region of the article of footwear (as seen in annotated Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 19, Bruce discloses wherein the shank extends in at least one of a midfoot region (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) or a heel region of the article of footwear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 AIA
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce US 20140075777 A1 (herein after Bruce) in view of Lai US 20230064528 A1(herein after Lai).
Regarding claim 6, the article of footwear of Bruce discloses all the limitations of claim 6 except they do not disclose at least one elongated thread extending through the peripheral flange and the footwear upper as multiple stitches stitching the footwear upper to the shank.
Lai teaches at least one elongated thread (paragraphs 0004, 0008, 0009 and 0041) extending through the peripheral flange and the footwear upper as multiple stitches stitching the footwear upper to the shank (paragraphs 0004, 0008, 0009 and 0041, as seen in annotated Figure 15).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one elongated thread extending through the peripheral flange and the footwear upper as multiple stitches stitching the footwear upper to the shank.)]
PNG
media_image4.png
757
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bruce and Lai are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to footwear and footwear assembly processes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the footwear of Bruce by there being at least one elongated thread extending through the peripheral flange and the footwear upper as multiple stitches stitching the footwear upper to the shank as taught by Lai, in order to secure the components together. The modification would be a simple modification to ensure the shoe components, specifically the upper and shank stay in the desired location and do not shift with wear.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce US 20140075777 A1 (herein after Bruce) in view of Lubart CN 102548441 A (herein after Lubart).
Regarding claim 10, the article of footwear of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 10 however they do not disclose wherein the protruding ribs are concentric.
Lubart discloses wherein the protruding ribs are concentric (as seen in annotated Figures 2 and 3 - concentric as defined by having a shared axis).
PNG
media_image5.png
521
443
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Support plate.)]
[AltContent: textbox (The protruding ribs are linear and include at least one rib extending lengthwise in a fore-aft direction of the shank.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Concentric ribs – as defined by Merriam Webster as having a shared axis.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Lubart is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to footwear and reinforced sole configurations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the shank of Bruce by constructing the shank having protruding ribs and those ribs being concentric as taught by Lubart, in order to provide support to the shank in areas that flex. The modification would be a simple modification to support and maintain the integrity of the shank by preventing over torsion during wear.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce US 20140075777 A1 (herein after Bruce) in view of Auyang US 20190365039 A1(herein after Auyang).
Regarding claim 14, the article of footwear of Bruce discloses all the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses the shank has a peripheral flange defining an outer perimeter of the shank (as seen in annotated Figure 1A); however Bruce does not disclose the strobel further includes a polymeric bladder secured to the peripheral flange of the shank; and the shank and the polymeric bladder are each disposed in and partially define at least one different one of a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region of the article of footwear.
Auyang teaches the strobel further includes a polymeric bladder (Abstract) secured to the peripheral flange of the shank (as seen in annotated Figure 24); and the shank and the polymeric bladder are each disposed in and partially define at least one different one of a forefoot region (as seen in annotated Figure 24), a midfoot region, and a heel region of the article of footwear.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Toe cap)][AltContent: textbox (Bladder16)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Strobel - 10)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
601
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
582
303
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Auyang is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to footwear with multi-component sole configurations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the sole configuration of Bruce by constructing the strobel including a polymeric bladder secured to the peripheral flange of the shank; and the shank and the polymeric bladder being each disposed in and partially defining at least one different one of a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region of the article of footwear as taught by Auyang, in order to create a sole structure that does not require multiple layers of components but is a single component that serves multiple purposes and has different properties in different locations. The modification would be a simple modification to create footwear that has less bulk and weight, but still is capable of providing cushioning, support and stability.
Regarding claim 15, the modified footwear of the combined references discloses the polymeric bladder (Abstract of Auyang) defines an interior cavity (Abstract of Auyang) and is configured to retain a fluid in the interior cavity (Abstract of Auyang), the polymeric bladder (Abstract of Auyang) having a peripheral flange (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang) extending around at least a portion of the interior cavity and enclosing the interior cavity (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang); and the peripheral flange of the polymeric bladder is secured to the peripheral flange of the shank (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang).
Regarding claim 16, the modified footwear of the combined references discloses the strobel further includes a toe plate (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang) extending in a foremost extent of the forefoot region (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang) and composed of an elastomeric material (paragraph 0083, 0084 of Auyang); and the polymeric bladder is secured to the toe plate (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang).
Regarding claim 17, the modified footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the shank and the polymeric bladder each define a portion of a proximal surface of the strobel (as seen in annotated Figure 24 of Auyang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, at (571) 272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights