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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species in that the elected species (Species III, shown in figure 6c) shows a plate layer comprising a single plate with a solid arch portion at 628 and slits in the forward and rearward portions to form reinforcing members, this embodiment does not have hollow sections, a posterior portion, and therefore these claims do not read on the elected species. There being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-26 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 24-26 the phrase “flow-line” is confusing, vague, and indefinite because it is not clear what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language, this phrase appears to merely refer to a random line.
Claim 38 recites the same limitations of claim 30 and therefore it is not clear what further structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24- 29, 35-37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dombrow (8984775).
Dombrow shows A sole for a shoe, the sole comprising:
a midsole (154 and 148);
at least two reinforcing members (164, 166, 168, and 170) at least partially embedded in the midsole (see column 9 line 60- column 10 line 8), wherein:
a first reinforcing member (166 and 170 see figure 8A) of the reinforcing members extends along a lateral side of the midsole from a toe region to a heel region of the sole, and
a second reinforcing member (164 and 168 see figure 8A) of the reinforcing member extends along a medial side of the midsole from the toe region to the heel region of the sole,
wherein the first reinforcing member is spaced apart from the second reinforcing member in the toe region and the heel region (see figure 8A),
wherein the reinforcing members comprise a concave shape in the toe region of the sole, the concave shape extending upwardly away from a bottom surface of the midsole (see figures and column 8 lines 64-67), and
wherein each member of the at least two reinforcing members comprises a vertical thickness and a transverse width, wherein the vertical thickness is less than the transverse width (see figures) as claimed.
In reference to claims 24-26, see figure 8A.
In reference to claim 27, see figure 9 elements 154 and 148.
In reference to claim 28, Dombrow shows an outsole (152).
In reference to claim 29, see figure 9 which shows midsole (154) with sidewall (shown at the line from 154 in figure 9).
Dombrow shows A sole for a shoe, the sole comprising:
a midsole (154 and 148);
a reinforcing structure (160) at least partially embedded in a toe region the midsole (see column 9 line 60- column 10 line 8), the reinforcing structure comprising:
a connecting plate (162),
a first plurality of reinforcing members (164, 166) extending forwardly away from the connecting plate in a front half of the sole and comprising at least two reinforcing members, and
a second plurality of reinforcing members (168, 170) extending rearwardly from the connecting plate in a heel area of the sole and comprising at least two reinforcing members,
wherein the at least two reinforcing members of the first plurality of reinforcing members are spaced apart in a toe region from the connecting plate to terminating ends of the reinforcing members at a toe ends of the members (see figure 8A), and
wherein the at least two reinforcing members of the second plurality of reinforcing members are spaced apart in a heel region from the connecting plate to terminating ends of the reinforcing members at a heel ends of the members (see figure 8A); and
wherein each member of the first plurality of members and the second plurality of members comprises a vertical thickness and a transverse width, wherein the vertical thickness is less than the transverse width (see figure 8A) as claimed.
In reference to claims 37 and 39 see figure 8A.
Claim(s) 30, and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong (5185943).
Tong shows A sole for a shoe, the sole comprising:
a midsole (28);
a reinforcing structure (26 and 120) at least partially embedded in a toe region the midsole (see column 7 lines 31-33 which states that the heel portion of the plate is embedded in the midsole and column 8 lines 24-34), the reinforcing structure comprising:
a connecting plate (see marked up figure below),
a first plurality of reinforcing members (122) extending forwardly away from the connecting plate in a front half of the sole and comprising at least two reinforcing members, and
a second plurality of reinforcing members (see marked up figure below) extending rearwardly from the connecting plate in a heel area of the sole and comprising at least two reinforcing members,
wherein the at least two reinforcing members of the first plurality of reinforcing members are spaced apart in a toe region from the connecting plate to terminating ends of the reinforcing members at a toe ends of the members (see figure 16), and
wherein the at least two reinforcing members of the second plurality of reinforcing members are spaced apart in a heel region from the connecting plate to terminating ends of the reinforcing members at a heel ends of the members (see figure 16); and
wherein each member of the first plurality of members and the second plurality of members comprises a vertical thickness and a transverse width, wherein the vertical thickness is less than the transverse width as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
820
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 37, see column 9 line 19.
In reference to claims 30 and 37- 39, see figure 16 which shows at least four first and second reinforcing plates.
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.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombrow in view of Auger (9445645).
Dombrow shows a sole substantially as claimed except for a raised reinforcing section. Auger teaches providing a raised reinforcing section (see figures 2 and 6-8) on a reinforcing member. It would have been obvious to provide a raised reinforcing section as taught by Auger on the members of Dombrow to increase the stiffness, strength and durability of the members.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombrow.
Dombrow shows a sole with a member (160) having a laminate (156) substantially as claimed except for the exact material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a tear-resistant mesh, 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ amendments claims 21 and 24-39 have been rejoined because they now read on the elected embodiment of species III shown in figure 6C.
In response to applicants’ arguments directed towards the thickness and width of the members, both Tong and Dombrow show the claimed thicknesses.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
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.
In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet.
Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425.
/MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights