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 Prosecution Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/18/2026 has been entered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “joining the polymer sole and bed”, which should be “joining the polymer sole and the polymer bed” in order to keep consistent terminology.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad et al. (DE 3731905), hereinafter Mustad, in view of Ruetenik (US 20160249597) and Dixon (US 2622685).
Regarding claim 1, Mustad teaches of a support device for an equine hoof (seen in fig. 1), the support device comprising:
a rigid element (p. 1, the horseshoe has rigidity) having:
a rigid sole surface (p. 1, the horseshoe is manufactured with metal and plastic for rigidity on the sole, fig. 2, metal part 5 is embedded in the sole part 1);
a rigid upper surface (p. 2, upper surface of the metal part 5 is rigid);
a rigid wall joining the sole surface and the upper surface (wall of metal part 5 between the sole surface and the upper surface);
a plurality of fenestrations (fig. 4a, upper grooves 8, lateral grooves 9, and lower grooves 11 extend laterally on external surfaces on metal part 5) extending between the sole surface and the upper surface (seen in fig. 2);
a plurality of passages extending between the sole surface and the upper surface (fig. 2, grooves 7 extend internally between openings 6 and connect openings 6 with grooves 8);
a polymer element (plastic portions) positioned at a caudal region (around the horseshoe, including the caudal region) having:
a polymer sole (plastic material in the sole);
a polymer bed (fig. 1, plastic flatbed where the hoof is on);
a polymer lateral wall joining the polymer sole and the polymer bed (plastic walls joining the polymer sole and the polymer bed);
a plurality of fenestrations (fig. 4a, grooves 8, lateral grooves 9, and lower grooves 11 also extend through the plastic element); and
wherein the polymer element is secured to the rigid element by overmolding (plastic upper portion is overmolded to metal part 5 and penetrated through the openings 6 and grooves 7, 8, 9, and 11).
Mustad does not appear to teach of a rigid element positioned at a coffin region, a polymer element positioned at a caudal region, and wherein the coffin region has a greater rigidity than the caudal region.
Ruetenik teaches of a break-over point element at a coffin region (fig. 4, ¶0041, Point c is the break-over point of the boot/attachment assembly and desirably located below a point near the front of the distal P phalanx, P3 (coffin bone). In general, it is desirable that the break-over be within 1-2 inches, front to back, on the attachment from the front point of P3. The ideal point, in most cases will be at or within ½ inch of the front of the P3. Examiner notes the coffin region is interpreted as the region surrounding and encompassing the coffin bone).
Dixon teaches of a rigid element positioned at a coffin region (fig. 1, col. 2 line 24-33, toe cleat 50 with upright member 54 is made up of case hardened steel and is positioned at a breaking-over point, which as Ruetenik teaches, is ideally at a coffin region), a polymer element (rubber bodies 62, 64, 66, 68, 72, 74, 76, 78) positioned at a caudal region (rubber bodies 66, 74, 68, 76, 70, 78 are positioned at the caudal region), and wherein the coffin region has a greater rigidity than the caudal region (the case hardened steel of toe cleat 50 in the coffin region causes a greater rigidity than the rubber bodies located in the caudal region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Ruetenik and Dixon of a rigid element positioned at a coffin region, a polymer element positioned at a caudal region, and wherein the coffin region has a greater rigidity than the caudal region in order to provide further durability and resilience to the toe where the horse pivots on and allows a faster breaking-over action of the hoof as motivated by Dixon on col. 2 lines 51-55 and to allow the boot or hoof to rotate forward having a break-over point near the centerline, front to back, of the sole of the boot and enable an equine to find a more naturally comfortable position as motivated by Ruetenik in para. 0003.
Regarding claim 2, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein a portion of the polymer element extends through the plurality of passages (fig. 2, p. 4, the plastic extends through the grooves 7).
Regarding claim 3, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 2, but does not appear to teach of wherein the polymer sole includes treads.
Dixon teaches of wherein the polymer sole includes treads (fig. 1, rubber bodies 62, 64, 66, 68, 72, 74, 76, 78 are treads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Dixon of wherein the polymer sole includes treads in order to provide traction for the horse and reduce the probability of the horse to slip and get injured.
Regarding claim 4, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 2, and wherein the rigid element is metal (p. 1, made with rigid metal).
Regarding claim 5, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 4, and wherein the metal is a steel alloy (p. 4, the metal part can be steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys).
Regarding claim 6, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 4, and wherein the metal is an aluminum alloy (p. 4, the metal part can be steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys).
Regarding claim 10, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 2, and further comprising a clip extending from the rigid upper surface (fig. 1, one of tabs 2 extending from the rigid upper surface of metal part 5).
Regarding claim 11, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 10, and further comprising a second clip extending from the rigid upper surface (fig. 1, another of tabs 2 extending from the rigid upper surface of metal part 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Berghorn et al. (US 20100276163), hereinafter Berghorn.
Regarding claim 7, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 2, but does not appear to teach of wherein the rigid element is carbon fiber.
Berghorn teaches of wherein the rigid element is carbon fiber (¶0006, the horseshoe rigid element can be carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Berghorn of wherein the rigid element is carbon fiber in order to use materials that allows for increased structural rigidity and stiffness while maintaining a low overall density as motivated by Berghorn in para. 0006.
Claims 8-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burns et al. (US 20120193107), hereinafter Burns.
Regarding claim 8, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the polymer element is urethane.
Burns teaches of wherein the polymer element is urethane (fig. 2, ¶0091, polymeric material 36 is preferably hybrid polyurethane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of wherein the polymer element is urethane in order to use a material that is capable of withstanding heavy loads and thereby improve the functionality and use of the horseshoe.
Regarding claim 9, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 8, but does not appear to teach of wherein the urethane has a durometer between 80A and 90A.
Burns teaches of wherein the urethane has a durometer between 80A and 90A (¶0157, the urethane material 36 has a durometer between 85 and 100 on the A schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of wherein the urethane has a durometer between 80A and 90A in order to use a material that is capable of withstanding heavy loads and thereby improve the functionality and use of the horseshoe.
Regarding claim 12, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising a wire extending through the polymer element, the wire being secured to the rigid element.
Burns teaches of (fig. 2) further comprising a wire (wire 28) extending through the polymer element (extends around polymeric material 36), the wire being secured to the rigid element (secured to hard wear resistant insert 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of further comprising a wire extending through the polymer element, the wire being secured to the rigid element in order to provide reinforcement to the horseshoe around the horseshoe including the toe portion of the horseshoe as motivated by Burns in para. 0086.
Regarding claim 13, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein the wire is mechanically attached to the rigid element.
Burns teaches of (fig. 2) wherein the wire (28) is mechanically attached to the rigid element (30) (mechanically attached by using a welder to attach with spot weld 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of wherein the wire is mechanically attached to the rigid element in order to securely attach the wire to the rigid element without using a lot of space.
Regarding claim 14, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein the wire is welded to the rigid element.
Burns teaches of (fig. 2) wherein the wire (28) is welded to the rigid element (30) (attached with spot weld 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of wherein the wire is welded to the rigid element in order to securely attach the wire to the rigid element without using a lot of space.
Regarding claim 15, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein the wire forms a curvilinear configuration.
Burns teaches of wherein the wire forms a curvilinear configuration (fig. 2, wire 28 forms a curvilinear configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of wherein the wire forms a curvilinear configuration in order to follow the curves of the horseshoe.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustad in view of Rutenik, Dixon, and Burns.
Regarding claim 16, Mustad teaches of (fig. 1) a support device for an equine hoof (seen in fig. 1), the support device comprising:
a metal element (metal part 5) having:
a rigid sole surface (p. 1, the horseshoe is manufactured with metal and plastic for rigidity on the sole, fig. 2, metal part 5 is embedded in the sole part 1);
a rigid upper surface (p. 2, upper surface of the metal part 5 is rigid);
a rigid wall joining the sole surface and the upper surface (wall of metal part 5 between the sole surface and the upper surface);
a plurality of fenestrations (fig. 4a, upper grooves 8, lateral grooves 9, and lower grooves 11 extend laterally on external surfaces on metal part 5) extending between the sole surface and the upper surface (seen in fig. 2);
a plurality of passages extending between the sole surface and the upper surface (fig. 2, grooves 7 extend internally between openings 6 and connect openings 6 with grooves 8);
a polymer element (plastic portions) positioned at a caudal region (around the horseshoe, including the caudal region) having:
a polymer sole (plastic material in the sole);
a polymer bed (fig. 1, plastic flatbed where the hoof is on);
a polymer lateral wall joining the polymer sole and the polymer bed (plastic walls joining the polymer sole and the polymer bed);
a plurality of fenestrations (fig. 4a, grooves 8, lateral grooves 9, and lower grooves 11 also extend through the plastic element); and
wherein the polymer element is secured to the metal element by overmolding through the plurality of passages (plastic upper portion is overmolded to metal part 5 and penetrated through the openings 6 and grooves 7, 8).
Mustad does not appear to teach of a metal element positioned at a coffin region;
a urethane element positioned at a caudal region;
a polymer sole having treads;
a rigid wire extending through the polymer element, the wire being secured to the metal element;
wherein the coffin region has a greater rigidity than the caudal region.
Ruetenik teaches of a break-over point element at a coffin region (¶0041, Point c is the break-over point of the boot/attachment assembly and desirably located below a point near the front of the distal P phalanx, P3 (coffin bone). In general, it is desirable that the break-over be within 1-2 inches, front to back, on the attachment from the front point of P3. The ideal point, in most cases will be at or within ½ inch of the front of the P3. Examiner notes the coffin region is interpreted as the region surrounding and encompassing the coffin bone).
Dixon teaches of a metal element positioned at a coffin region (fig. 1, col. 2 line 24-33, toe cleat 50 with upright member 54 is made up of case hardened steel and is positioned at a breaking-over point, which as Ruetenik teaches, is ideally at a coffin region), a polymer element (rubber bodies 62, 64, 66, 68, 72, 74, 76, 78) positioned at a caudal region (rubber bodies 66, 74, 68, 76, 70, 78 are positioned at the caudal region),
a polymer sole having treads (fig. 1, rubber bodies 62, 64, 66, 68, 72, 74, 76, 78 are treads),
and wherein the coffin region has a greater rigidity than the caudal region (the case hardened steel of toe cleat 50 in the coffin region causes a greater rigidity than the rubber bodies located in the caudal region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Ruetenik and Dixon of a metal element positioned at a coffin region, a polymer element positioned at a caudal region, a polymer sole having treads, and wherein the coffin region has a greater rigidity than the caudal region in order to provide further durability and resilience to the toe where the horse pivots on and allows a faster breaking-over action of the hoof as motivated by Dixon on col. 2 lines 51-55, provide traction for the horse and reduce the probability of the horse to slip and get injured, and to allow the boot or hoof to rotate forward having a break-over point near the centerline, front to back, of the sole of the boot and enable an equine to find a more naturally comfortable position as motivated by Ruetenik in para. 0003.
Burns teaches of a urethane element (fig. 2, ¶0091, polymeric material 36 is preferably hybrid polyurethane) positioned at a caudal region (positioned around the horseshoe, including the caudal region);
a rigid wire (wire 28) extending through the polymer element (extends around polymeric material 36), the wire (28) being secured to the metal element (¶0091, secured to hard wear resistant insert 30, which is preferably made from metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of a urethane element; a rigid wire extending through the polymer element, the wire being secured to the metal element in order to provide reinforcement to the horseshoe around the horseshoe including the toe portion of the horseshoe as motivated by Burns in para. 0086.
Regarding claim 17, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 16, and wherein the metal is a steel alloy (p. 4, the metal part can be steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys).
Regarding claim 18, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 17, and wherein the metal is an aluminum alloy (p. 4, the metal part can be steel, aluminum, or suitable metal alloys).
Regarding claim 19, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 16, but does not appear to teach of wherein the urethane element has a durometer between 80A and 90A.
Burns teaches of wherein the urethane element has a durometer between 80A and 90A (¶0157, the urethane material 36 has a durometer between 85 and 100 on the A schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mustad to incorporate the teachings of Burns of wherein the urethane element has a durometer between 80A and 90A in order to a material that is capable of withstanding heavy loads and thereby improve the functionality and use of the horseshoe.
Regarding claim 20, Mustad as modified teaches of claim 16, and further comprising a clip extending from the rigid upper surface (fig. 1, one of tabs 2 extending from the rigid upper surface of metal part 5).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights