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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 11/13/2025 (see p. 7-10 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Section 112 Rejections (p. 7): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the present disclosure, the amended claims, and Applicant’s remarks: Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections as applied in the previous Office action.
Regarding Section 103 Rejections (p. 7-8): Applicant’s arguments 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.
Regarding Double Patenting Rejections (p. 9-10): Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon review of the present disclosure, the amended claims, Applicant’s remarks, and the Terminal Disclaimer filed 11/13/2025 and the subsequent Terminal Disclaimer Review Decision mailed 11/19/2025, the double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Salvatelli discloses (Figs. 1-10):
A sole structure 2, 7, 10 (i.e. the combined “sole 2”, “intermediate insole member 7”, and “insole 10”; paras 2, 28, 36) for an article of footwear 1, the sole structure comprising:
an interior cushioning arrangement 10 extending between an anterior end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below), which includes a forward-most point of the sole structure, and a posterior end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below), which includes a rearward-most point of the sole structure, the interior cushioning arrangement including (i) a forefoot cushioning (“cushioning”; para 37) element 10a extending from the anterior end to a first end of the forefoot cushioning element (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below) and including a first material (“cushioning material”; para 37), wherein the forefoot cushioning element includes a first set of undulating engagement features (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below) at the first end, and (ii) a heel cushioning (“cushioning”; para 37) element 10b, 10c (i.e. the combined 10b and 10c) extending from the posterior end to a second end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below) of the heel forefoot cushioning element and including a second material (“cushioning material”; para 37), wherein the heel cushioning element includes a second set of undulating engagement features (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below) at the second end, wherein the first set of undulating engagement features at the first end of the forefoot cushioning element interfaces with the second set of undulating engagement features at the second end of the heel cushioning element (para 36; Fig. 9); and
an outsole 2 including an outer shell 2 extending between the first end at the anterior end and the second end at the posterior end (as in annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below), the outer shell including a ground-engaging element 3 and a peripheral wall (the peripheral edge identified in annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – a below wherein said “peripheral edge...extends upwardly from the upper surface 5 and substantially perpendicularly to the inner surface 5, the edge 6 having a height preferably of about 45 mm.”; para 27) configured to extend from the ground-engaging element toward an upper 4 of the article of footwear along a perimeter of the outer shell (para 27; Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1035
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Salvatelli further discloses wherein the interior cushioning arrangement includes a first surface (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – b below) having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second surface (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – b below) formed by the heel cushioning element, wherein the first surface and the second surface form a continuous surface of the interior cushioning arrangement (as in annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Salvatelli further discloses further comprising a plate 7 disposed adjacent to a first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – c below) having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion formed by the heel cushioning element (as in annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – c below).
PNG
media_image3.png
590
1035
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Salvatelli further discloses wherein the outer shell 2 is formed of a fourth material (a material of outer shell 2) and defines a receptacle (see annotated Figs. 1 and 9-10 – d below), and wherein the interior cushioning arrangement is at least partially received within the receptacle (Fig. 1; peripheral wall is “dimensions so as to...located” the interior cushioning arrangement at least partially received within the receptacle).
PNG
media_image4.png
590
1035
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Fuerst, US 2008/0010855, newly cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Fuerst discloses (Figs. 1-8):
A sole structure 10, 20 (i.e. the combined “midsole 10 and...outsole 20”; para 20) for an article of footwear (para 23), the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot cushioning element 22 continuously extending from a first distal end (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) to a first proximal end (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) and including a first material (“rubber or plastic material that is...foamed”; para 27) having a first durometer (forefoot cushioning element is configured to provide cushioning and comprises foamed rubber or plastic such that it has a durometer), the first proximal end including a first beveled engagement surface (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) of the forefoot cushioning element;
a heel cushioning element 24 continuously extending from a second distal end (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) to a second proximal end (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) and including a second material (“rubber or plastic material that is...foamed”; para 27) having a second durometer (heel cushioning element is configured to provide cushioning and comprises foamed rubber or plastic such that it has a durometer), the second proximal end including a second beveled engagement surface (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) opposing the first beveled engagement surface of the forefoot cushioning element (as in annotated Fig. 4 – a below), wherein the forefoot cushioning element overlaps over the heel cushioning element (Figs. 1 and 3-4) to form a beveled stepped configuration (“Seam 26 is...a stepped seam with relatively vertical sections 28 and 30 adjacent to relatively more horizontal section 32”; para 20; Figs. 1 and 3-4) of the first beveled engagement surface and the second beveled engagement surface, wherein the beveled stepped configuration provides a gradual transition from the first durometer to the second durometer (configuration is a beveled stepped configuration such that portions of forefoot and heel cushioning elements overlap each other at the beveled stepped configuration so as to provide a gradual transition between the first material of the forefoot cushioning element and the second material of the heel cushioning element such that a gradual transition from the first durometer to the second durometer is provided); and
an outsole 20 including:
an outer shell 20 including a ground-engaging element (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) and a peripheral wall (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) configured to extend from the ground-engaging element toward an upper 36 of the article of footwear along a perimeter of the outer shell (para 23; Figs. 2 and 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
538
1446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12:
Fuerst discloses The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fuerst further discloses wherein the second durometer (i.e. of heel cushioning element 24) is less than the first durometer (i.e. of forefoot cushioning element 22).
(“having...a softer (less rigid) heel and midfoot section” 24 than forefoot cushioning element 22; para 27)
Regarding claim 13:
Fuerst discloses The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fuerst further discloses wherein the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element cooperate to form a first surface (see annotated Fig. 4 – b below) having a first portion (see annotated Fig. 4 – b below) formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion (see annotated Fig. 4 – b below) formed by the heel cushioning element.
PNG
media_image6.png
538
1446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18:
Fuerst discloses The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fuerst further discloses wherein the outer shell 20 is formed of a fourth material (para 29) and defining a receptacle (see annotated Fig. 4 – c below), the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element at least partially received within the receptacle (as in annotated Fig. 4 – c below).
PNG
media_image7.png
538
1446
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19:
Fuerst discloses The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fuerst further discloses wherein the first material is a first foamed elastomer (“rubber...that is...foamed”; para 27, wherein it is noted the present disclosure states that rubber is an elastomer, see “elastomer (e.g., rubber)” para 49 of the present disclosure as filed and “elastomeric material, such as a natural or synthetic rubber material”, para 67 of the present disclosure as filed) and the second material is a second foamed elastomer (“rubber...that is...foamed”; para 27).
Regarding claim 20:
Fuerst discloses The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fuerst further discloses wherein the first beveled engagement surface includes a first plurality of engagement features (a first feature being the surface of the first beveled engagement surface participating in section 28 of stepped seam 26; a second feature being the surface of the first beveled engagement surface participating in section 32 of stepped seam 26; a third feature being the surface of the first beveled engagement surface participating in section 30 of stepped seam 26) and the second beveled engagement surface includes a second plurality of engagement features (a first feature being the surface of the second beveled engagement surface participating in section 28 of stepped seam 26; a second feature being the surface of the second beveled engagement surface participating in section 32 of stepped seam 26; a third feature being the surface of the second beveled engagement surface participating in section 30 of stepped seam 26) configured to mate with the first plurality of engagement features (para 20; Figs. 1 and 3-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740] in view of [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 01/10/2025].
Regarding claim 2:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Salvatelli does not expressly disclose wherein the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer.
Salvatelli does teach the “portions” “can” be “made of different materials thereby obtaining an insole element having mechanical characteristics changing from its rear to its front portion. Such an insole makes it possible to adapt a footwear orthosis according to the invention to specific user's needs” (para 38); however, Salvatelli does not specify relative durometer of material(s) of the various portions thereof.
However, Hopkins teaches, and in relation to a sole structure (Abstract; Title) for footwear (para 3) that “A firmer heel and softer forefoot could allow a forefoot to compress a sole structure more in the forefoot region, creating a higher heel offset feel. A softer heel and a firmer forefoot could have the opposite effect and create a lower heel offset feel” (para 68).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Salvatelli such that the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer in order to yield a sole structure that affords a lower heel offset feel, as suggested by Hopkins (para 68), wherein said heel offset feel would be desirable to at least some user of the sole structure who prefers a low heel offset feel in his/her footwear.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740] in view of [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 4:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Although Salvatelli discloses a plate 7 (see above 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 4), the plate 7 as applied fails to meet the further limitations of both claim 4 and also claim 5; i.e. the plate 7 of Salvatelli is not disposed adjacent to a first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion formed by the heel cushioning element and also disposed within a socket formed in the first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement.
However, Luethi teaches a plate 17 disposed adjacent a first surface, wherein a forefoot element 12 and a heel element 14 cooperate to form the first surface (Figs. 2-6).
In Luethi, the plate 17 is disposed within a socket (the socket within which the plate is provided; Figs. 2 and 4-5) formed in the first surface (Figs. 2 and 4-5)
Luethi further teaches the plate 17 is a “metatarsal support...provided in the metatarsal region above” the forefoot element and the heel element (para 39).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Salvatelli such that it is provided with yet another plate disposed adjacent to the first surface; further wherein said yet another the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface in order to provide metatarsal support for a wearer by said yet another plate, as suggested by Luethi (para 39).
Regarding claim 5:
Salvatelli in view of Luethi teach The sole structure of claim 4, as set forth above.
The modified Salvatelli further meets the limitation wherein the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface (see above treatment of claim 4 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740] and [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1] as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of [Brandstatter, US 2013/0000146, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 mailed 08/05/2025].
Regarding claim 6:
Salvatelli in view of Luethi teach The sole structure of claim 44, as set forth above.
Fuerst does not expressly disclose further comprising an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the interior cushioning arrangement and including a third material.
Brandstatter teaches providing a sole structure with an insole upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of a plate 16 than an interior cushioning arrangement comprising a forefoot cushioning element 17 and a heel cushion 18 (18 is “cushioning” (para 26), and 17 has a hardness (para 17; para 34) such that it is configured to cushion). A “midsole 16 is disposed beneath the insole 15 in the shoe” and a “torsion stabilizer 17 and the heel wedge 18 (heel cushioning) are disposed beneath the” insole 15 (para 30, Fig. 1). “The hardness and flexibility of the shoe can be adjusted at least in part via the insole 15, and in this manner, can define the field of use of the shoe. For this a strobel lasted embodiment having a comparably soft (textile) insole can provide a high degree of flexibility...A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34).
It 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 to have modified the modified Salvatelli such that it is provided with an insole that is an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the interior cushioning arrangement and including a third material in order to yield a sole structure wherein the insole upper cushioning element is capable of affording hardness and/or flexibility to the sole structure by virtue of the properties of the insole upper cushioning element, as taught by Brandstatter.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740], [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1], and [Brandstatter, US 2013/0000146] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633].
Regarding claim 7:
Salvatelli in view of Luethi and Brandstatter teach The sole structure of claim 6, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 6, the modified Salvatelli does not meet the limitation wherein the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the third material has a third durometer, wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer, and wherein the third durometer is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer.
Salvatelli does teach the “portions” “can” be “made of different materials thereby obtaining an insole element having mechanical characteristics changing from its rear to its front portion. Such an insole makes it possible to adapt a footwear orthosis according to the invention to specific user's needs” (para 38); however, Salvatelli does not specify relative durometer of material(s) of the various portions thereof.
However, Hopkins teaches, and in relation to a sole structure (Abstract; Title) for footwear (para 3) that “A firmer heel and softer forefoot could allow a forefoot to compress a sole structure more in the forefoot region, creating a higher heel offset feel. A softer heel and a firmer forefoot could have the opposite effect and create a lower heel offset feel” (para 68).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Salvatelli such that the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer in order to yield a sole structure that affords a lower heel offset feel, as suggested by Hopkins (para 68), wherein said heel offset feel would be desirable to at least some user of the sole structure who prefers a low heel offset feel in his/her footwear.
Regarding the third durometer:
In further view of Brandstatter: Brandstatter teaches “A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). Brandstatter further teaches “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34) such that Brandstatter teaches manipulation of hardness of individual components.
It 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 to have modified the modified Salvatelli such that its their material has a third durometer which is is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer in order to yield the predictable result of an insole forefoot cushioning element that provides stability while running, as suggested by Brandstatter (para 26) due to its hardness that exceeds the hardness of the underlying forefoot and heel cushioning elements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740] in view of [Aoki, US 2019/0367667, previously cited; see the PTO-892 mailed 08/05/2025].
Regarding claim 9:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Salvatelli does not expressly disclose wherein the first material is a first foamed elastomer and the second material is a second foamed elastomer.
However, Aoki teaches a foamed elastomer appropriate for use in a sole structure for footwear: “polyurethane elastomer foam is a material for a midsole of shoes”; para 13; “polyurethane elastomer foam is used as a material for an industrial product selected from the group consisting of sole member for shoes such as shoes inner sole, outer sole, and midsole (portion between inner sole and outer sole); shock absorbers including shock absorber for shoes”; para 108. Aoki further teaches the foamed elastomer have “an Asker C hardness (JIS K7312-7: 1996) of, for example, 30 or more...and for example, 60 or less” (para 105). Aoki further teaches “decrease in compression set and improvement in flex cracking of the polyurethane elastomer foam can be both achieved” (para 81).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Salvatelli such that its first material is a first foamed elastomer and the second material is a second foamed elastomer in order to afford low compression set and/or flex cracking resistance to the shoe sole as taught by Aoki (para 81).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Salvatelli, US 2005/0262740] in view of [Fuerst, US 2008/0010855].
Regarding claim 10:
Salvatelli discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Salvatelli does not expressly disclose wherein the first end includes a first beveled surface and the second end includes a second beveled surface, the first beveled surface mating with the second beveled surface.
However, Fuerst teaches a sole structure comprising a forefoot cushioning element 22 and a heel cushioning element 24 wherein a first end of the forefoot cushioning element includes a first beveled surface (the surface of the forefoot cushioning element participating in section 28 of stepped seam 26, section 32 of stepped seam 26, and section 30 of stepped seam 26) and a second end of the heel cushioning element includes a second beveled surface (the surface of the heel cushioning element participating in section 28 of stepped seam 26, section 32 of stepped seam 26, and section 30 of stepped seam 26), the first beveled surface mating with the second beveled surface (para 20; Figs. 1 and 3-8). Fuerst further teaches the beveled surface is arrange such that “the two sections to interact and latch to one another to add strength to the joint 26” (para 20).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Salvatelli such that the first end includes a first beveled surface and the second end includes a second beveled surface, the first beveled surface mating with the second beveled surface in order to provide strength to the seam between the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element, as taught by Fuerst (para 20).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fuerst, US 2008/0010855] in view of [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1].
Regarding claim 14:
Fuerst discloses The sole structure of claim 13, as set forth above.
Fuerst does not expressly disclose further comprising a plate disposed adjacent to the first surface.
However, Luethi teaches a plate 17 disposed adjacent a first surface, wherein a forefoot element 12 and a heel element 14 cooperate to form the first surface (Figs. 2-6).
In Luethi, the plate 17 is disposed within a socket (the socket within which the plate is provided; Figs. 2 and 4-5) formed in the first surface (Figs. 2 and 4-5)
Luethi further teaches the plate 17 is a “metatarsal support...provided in the metatarsal region above” the forefoot element and the heel element (para 39).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Fuerst such that it further comprises a plate disposed adjacent to the first surface; further wherein the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface in order to provide metatarsal support for a wearer by the plate, as suggested by Luethi (para 39).
Regarding claim 15:
Fuerst in view of Luethi teach The sole structure of claim 14, as set forth above.
The modified Fuerst further meets the limitation wherein the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface (see above treatment of claim 14 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fuerst, US 2008/0010855] and [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1] as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of [Brandstatter, US 2013/0000146].
Regarding claim 16:
Fuerst in view of Luethi teach The sole structure of claim 14, as set forth above.
Fuerst does not expressly disclose further comprising an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element, and including a third material having a third durometer.
Brandstatter teaches providing a sole structure with an insole upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of a plate 16 than a forefoot cushioning element 17 and a heel cushion 18 (18 is “cushioning” (para 26), and 17 has a hardness (para 17; para 34) such that it is configured to cushion). A “midsole 16 is disposed beneath the insole 15 in the shoe” and a “torsion stabilizer 17 and the heel wedge 18 (heel cushioning) are disposed beneath the” insole 15 (para 30, Fig. 1). “The hardness and flexibility of the shoe can be adjusted at least in part via the insole 15, and in this manner, can define the field of use of the shoe. For this a strobel lasted embodiment having a comparably soft (textile) insole can provide a high degree of flexibility...A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fuerst such that it is provided with an insole that is an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element, and including a third material having a third durometer in order to yield a sole structure wherein the insole upper cushioning element is capable of affording hardness and/or flexibility to the sole structure by virtue of the properties of the insole upper cushioning element, as taught by Brandstatter.
Regarding claim 17:
Fuerst in view of Luethi and Brandstatter teach The sole structure of claim 16, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 16, the modified Fuerst does not meet the limitation wherein the third durometer is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer.
However and in further view of Brandstatter: Brandstatter teaches “A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). Brandstatter further teaches “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34) such that Brandstatter teaches manipulation of hardness of individual components.
It 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 to have modified the modified Fuerst such that its third durometer is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer in order to yield the predictable result of an insole forefoot cushioning element that provides stability while running, as suggested by Brandstatter (para 26) due to its hardness that exceeds the hardness of the underlying forefoot and heel cushioning elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights