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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are presented.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
Dependent claims 3 and 8 are amended.
The present Office action treats claims 1-15 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 05/11/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Double Patenting: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered by they are moot insofar as the claims of the copending Application No. 18/228,813 that were relied upon in the provisional rejections set forth in the previous Office action (i.e. claims 13-20 of Application No. 18/228,813) have been canceled in copending Application No. 18/228,813. It is noted that in the Terminal Disclaimer review decision dated 05/16/2026, the Terminal Disclaimer filed 11 May 2026 is disapproved.
Regarding Claim Objections: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amended claims, applicant’s remarks of 05/11/2026, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 USC §112: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amended claims, applicant’s remarks of 05/11/2026, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 112 rejection set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 USC §102 and §103: 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8: “there of” should be --thereof--
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714, provided on the IDS of 03/25/2025] in view of [Glassman, US 4,420,894, provided on the IDS of 03/25/2025].
Regarding claim 1:
Zanzani discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A footwear structure 100 comprising:
a foot support component 102, 103, 9 (i.e. the combined 102, 103, and 9) formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (103 is “sewn or...fixed underneath” 102 (p. 5 line 30 – p. 6 line 1); there is “coupling between” “9 and...102...by sewing, during...molding, or in any other way” (p. 10 lines 24-26) such that the combined 102, 103, and 9 are formed as a unitary one-piece construction insofar as the elements thereof are fixed and/or coupled to one another as explained above) that includes:
(i) an upper portion 102, 103 (i.e. the combined 102 and 103) that defines an interior chamber (so as to “cover[] the foot” and provide 102 “in contact with the sole of the foot”; p. 5 lines 25-28), wherein the interior chamber includes a footbed portion (the surface of 102 configured to be “in contact with the sole of the foot”; p. 5 lines 26-27) formed by an interior surface of the upper portion (i.e. the surface of 102 configured to be “in contact with the sole of the foot”; p. 5 lines 26-27), and
(ii) a strobel structure 9 attached to the upper portion (103 is “sewn or...fixed underneath” 102 (p. 5 line 30 – p. 6 line 1); there is “coupling between” “9 and...102...by sewing, during...molding, or in any other way”; p. 10 lines 24-26) that includes a top surface (the “first face” of 9 which is “applied...on...102”; p. 10 lines 22-23) for supporting an entire plantar surface of a wearer's foot (as evidenced in Figs. 1-2 wherein 9 is configured to underlie a plantar surface of a wearer’s foot from heel-to-toe and from side-to-side; it is noted the footwear structure will fit wearers of different foot sizes differently such that the limitation is met) and a bottom surface (“second face of...9”; p. 10 line 28) opposite the top surface (“opposite to the first face”; p. 10 line 29), wherein the bottom surface includes a plurality of sole locking inserts 2a (i.e. “plurality of tenons 2a”; p. 7 line 19); and
a sole structure component 10, 101 (i.e. the combined 10 and 101) formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (10 is “is coupled...to...101...by sewing, during the molding, or in any other way” (p. 11 lines 24-26) such that the combined 10 and 101 is formed as a unitary, one-piece construction) that includes:
(i) an outsole component (the component of the sole structure component that is configured to contact the ground and is provided below the midsole component identified hereinbelow) that includes a ground-contacting surface (p. 5 line 25) for directly engaging the ground (p. 5 line 25), and
(ii) a midsole component (the component of the sole structure component that is provided above the outsole component and that comprises receptacles 105 and mortises 3a; it is noted the midsole component of Zanzani comprises a portion of 10 and also a portion of 101) located between the outsole component and the strobel structure (Figs. 1-3), the midsole component including a midsole surface (the surface into which mortises 3a and receptacles 105 are provided) including a plurality of sole cavities 3a, 105 (i.e. one cavity is a combined 3a and 103 and as shown generally in the embodiment of Fig. 8; and there are a plurality of such cavities as evidenced in Figs. 1-3) , wherein each of the plurality of sole cavities includes a recess 105 extending into an interior of the sole cavity and defines an undercut (defined by 6 and as generally shown in the embodiment of Fig. 8) within the interior of each of the plurality of sole cavities (as generally shown in the embodiment of Fig. 8),
wherein each of the plurality of sole locking inserts 2a extends into a respective one of the plurality of recesses (p. 7 lines 5-6; Figs. 2-3), wherein each of the plurality of sole locking inserts includes an enlarged free end (the end comprising “enlarged” “heads 5”; p. 8 lines 10-15) positioned to engage a respective undercut (p. 8 lines 20-22 and as generally shown in the embodiment of Fig. 9) and secure each of the plurality of sole locking inserts within a respective one of the plurality of recesses (p. 8 lines 15-19).
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of.
In Zanzani, the sole locking inserts 2a are “provided on a second face of the first layer 9” wherein the “first face” of the strobel structure 9 is “on...102” of the upper (the paragraph spanning p. 10-11).
Looking to Zanzani Fig. 1, sole locking inserts 2a appear to be extending directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections thereof. However, Zanzani does not show the precise structural arrangement of sole locking inserts 2a relative to bottom surface of strobel structure 9 such that it cannot be determined from the drawing alone whether sole locking inserts 21 are extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of. Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill would expect the sole locking inserts to be capable of insertion into mortises to achieve footwear structure assembly as described in p. 7 lines 5-9 if the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of as claimed.
However, Glassman teaches a sole locking insert 24 that extends directly form a bottom surface of a strobel structure 14 as an integral projection thereof (Figs. 1-5).
In addition, Glassman teaches a sole locking insert 71, 72 (i.e. the combined 71 and 72) that extends directly from a bottom surface of a strobel structure 74 as an integral projection thereof (Figs. 6-7).
Glassman further teaches “The snaps and the” strobel structure “are molded as an integral unit to eliminate cutting and assembly operations”; col. 2 lines 25-26.
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 footwear structure of Zanzani such that its sole locking inserts are molded with its strobel structure so as to yield the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of in order to simplify manufacture of the footwear structure, as suggested by Glassman (col. 2 lines 25-26).
And/or
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 footwear structure of Zanzani such that its plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein the sole locking inserts are durably secured to the rest of the footwear via integral attachment to the bottom surface of the strobel structure such that the sole locking inserts are provided on the bottom surface of the strobel structure. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to arrange the plurality of sole locking inserts relative to the strobel structure so as to arrange the sole locking inserts as being provided on the bottom surface of the strobel structure as described in the paragraph spanning p. 10-11 of Zanzani and as shown in Fig. 1 of Zanzani and so as to permit their insertion into mortises to achieve footwear structure assembly as described in p. 7 lines 5-9 of Zanzani and would have expected success in so providing when adopting the specific arrangement wherein the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of based on the teachings of Glassman.
Regarding claim 4:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani further discloses wherein each of the sole locking inserts includes one or more slits (i.e. the slit between teeth 4 is one slit, and each of the sole locking inserts comprises said slit between teeth 4 thereof).
Regarding claim 5:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani further discloses wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes two enlarged sole locking insert components (the two “enlarged” “heads 5” (p. 8 lines 10-15) of each free end).
Regarding claim 6:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani Figs. 1-3 does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes three enlarged sole locking insert components.
However and in further view of Zanzani:
Zanzani as embodied in Figs. 11-35 teaches an enlarged free end (the end of tenon 2b that comprises teeth 4; Figs 11-35) of a sole locking insert 2b (i.e. “tenon...2b”) to engage an undercut 3b (i.e. “mortise...3b”) wherein said enlarged free end comprises six enlarged sole locking insert components 4 (enlarged due to head 5 thereof).
Zanzani further teaches “the tenon 2a, 2b, 2c comprises a plurality of teeth 4...the embodiments illustrated in the accompanying figures have two teeth 4 for each tenon 2a (in the embodiments in Figures 1-10) or six teeth 4 for each tenon 2b, 2c (in the embodiments in Figures 1 1-35), but the number can be any, and therefore it can also be different from the number in the examples mentioned above” (p. 7 line 26 – p. 8 line 5).
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 Zanzani such that each of the plurality of free ends includes three enlarged sole locking insert components in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein each free end is configured to engage a respective undercut via the three enlarged sole locking insert components. One of ordinary skill would expect such an arrangement to work adequately well for this purpose whether there were two sole locking insert components or whether there were three based on the teachings of Zanzani.
Regarding claim 7:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani Figs. 1-3 does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes four enlarged sole locking insert components.
However and in further view of Zanzani:
Zanzani as embodied in Figs. 11-35 teaches an enlarged free end (the end of tenon 2b that comprises teeth 4; Figs 11-35) of a sole locking insert 2b (i.e. “tenon...2b”) to engage an undercut 3b (i.e. “mortise...3b”) wherein said enlarged free end comprises six enlarged sole locking insert components 4 (enlarged due to head 5 thereof).
Zanzani further teaches “the tenon 2a, 2b, 2c comprises a plurality of teeth 4...the embodiments illustrated in the accompanying figures have two teeth 4 for each tenon 2a (in the embodiments in Figures 1-10) or six teeth 4 for each tenon 2b, 2c (in the embodiments in Figures 1 1-35), but the number can be any, and therefore it can also be different from the number in the examples mentioned above” (p. 7 line 26 – p. 8 line 5).
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 Zanzani such that each of the plurality of free ends includes four enlarged sole locking insert components in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein each free end is configured to engage a respective undercut via the three enlarged sole locking insert components. One of ordinary skill would expect such an arrangement to work adequately well for this purpose whether there were two sole locking insert components or whether there were four based on the teachings of Zanzani.
Regarding claim 8:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani further discloses wherein the sole locking inserts engaging their corresponding sole cavities form the only means of fastening foot support component and the sole structure component (p. 2 lines 4-9; p. 16 lines 19-23).
11. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Glassman, US 4,420,894] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Auger, US 2010/0319218, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teach The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the foot support component includes an integrally formed heel counter.
However, Auger teaches a foot support component (“upper 104”; para 38) includes an integrally formed heel counter (“heel counter...integrally formed with upper 104”; para 38).
Auger further teaches a heel counter is “for providing support and limiting heel movement in heel region”; para 36.
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 Zanzani such that the foot support component includes an integrally formed heel counter in order to provide support and/or limit heel movement in a heel region, as taught by Auger (para 36).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Glassman, US 4,420,894] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Maccano, US 4,811,500, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the upper portion includes lace-engaging openings and the footwear structure further including a lace extending through the lace-engaging openings.
However, Maccano teaches an upper portion 16 includes lace-engaging openings 32 and further including a lace 34 extending through the lace-engaging openings (col. 4 lines 32-39; Figs. 1 and 3).
Maccano further teaches the lace is configured to be “tightened”; col. 2 line 65.
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 footwear structure of Zanzani such that its upper portion includes lace-engaging openings and is further provided with a lace extending through the lace-engaging openings in order to permit a wearer to tighten the upper portion around his foot, as suggested by Maccano (col. 2 line 65).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Glassman, US 4,420,894] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Greener, US 2014/0033579, [previously cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; 0.046; or 0.056 cubic inches (paras 23-25). These values are equivalent to 700, 750, and 920 mm3, respectively, which are each less than 1500 mm3.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less.
Regarding claim 10:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; 0.046; or 0.056 cubic inches (paras 23-25). These values are equivalent to 700, 750, and 920 mm3, respectively, which are all within the claimed range.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3 in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3.
Regarding claim 11:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 300 mm3 and 1,200 mm3.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; 0.046; or 0.056 cubic inches (paras 23-25). These values are equivalent to 700, 750, and 920 mm3, respectively, which are all within the claimed range.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 300 mm3 and 1,200 mm3 in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume between 300 mm3 and 1,200 mm3.
Regarding claim 12:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 500 mm3 and 900 mm3.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; or 0.046 cubic inches (paras 23-24). These values are equivalent to 700, and 750 mm3, respectively, which are both within the claimed range.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 500 mm3 and 900 mm3 in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume between 300 mm3 and 900 mm3.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Glassman, US 4,420,894] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Livne, US 2023/0029846, previously cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Zanzani in view of Glassman teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.75 to 1.0.
However, Livne teaches a footwear structure wherein “a portion of a protuberance occupies at least 80% of” a “recess area or volume”; para 75.
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 Zanzani such that a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.75 to 1.0 in order to yield the predictable result of providing each recess large enough to receive each respective insert therein while also permitting a range of manufacturing tolerance in insert size and/or position.
Regarding claim 14:
Zanzani in view of Glassman and Livne teach The footwear structure according to claim 13, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the volume ratio is within the range of 0.75 to 0.99.
However, Livne teaches a footwear structure wherein “a portion of a protuberance occupies at least 80% of” a “recess area or volume”; para 75.
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 Zanzani such that a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.75 to 0.99 in order to yield the predictable result of providing each recess large enough to receive each respective insert therein while also permitting a range of manufacturing tolerance in insert size and/or position.
Regarding claim 15:
Zanzani in view of Glassman and Livne teach The footwear structure according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the volume ratio is within the range of 0.8 to 0.95.
However, Livne teaches a footwear structure wherein “a portion of a protuberance occupies at least 80% of” a “recess area or volume”; para 75.
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 Zanzani such that a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.8 to 0.95 in order to yield the predictable result of providing each recess large enough to receive each respective insert therein while also permitting a range of manufacturing tolerance in insert size and/or position.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714, provided on the IDS of 03/25/2025] in view of [Heilhecker, US 2,183,277, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Zanzani discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A footwear structure 100 comprising:
a foot support component 102, 103, 9 (i.e. the combined 102, 103, and 9) formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (103 is “sewn or...fixed underneath” 102 (p. 5 line 30 – p. 6 line 1); there is “coupling between” “9 and...102...by sewing, during...molding, or in any other way” (p. 10 lines 24-26) such that the combined 102, 103, and 9 are formed as a unitary one-piece construction insofar as the elements thereof are fixed and/or coupled to one another as explained above) that includes:
(i) an upper portion 102, 103 (i.e. the combined 102 and 103) that defines an interior chamber (so as to “cover[] the foot” and provide 102 “in contact with the sole of the foot”; p. 5 lines 25-28), wherein the interior chamber includes a footbed portion (the surface of 102 configured to be “in contact with the sole of the foot”; p. 5 lines 26-27) formed by an interior surface of the upper portion (i.e. the surface of 102 configured to be “in contact with the sole of the foot”; p. 5 lines 26-27), and
(ii) a strobel structure 9 attached to the upper portion (103 is “sewn or...fixed underneath” 102 (p. 5 line 30 – p. 6 line 1); there is “coupling between” “9 and...102...by sewing, during...molding, or in any other way”; p. 10 lines 24-26) that includes a top surface (the “first face” of 9 which is “applied...on...102”; p. 10 lines 22-23) for supporting an entire plantar surface of a wearer's foot (as evidenced in Figs. 1-2 wherein 9 is configured to underlie a plantar surface of a wearer’s foot from heel-to-toe and from side-to-side; it is noted the footwear structure will fit wearers of different foot sizes differently such that the limitation is met) and a bottom surface (“second face of...9”; p. 10 line 28) opposite the top surface (“opposite to the first face”; p. 10 line 29), wherein the bottom surface includes a plurality of sole locking inserts 2a (i.e. “plurality of tenons 2a”; p. 7 line 19); and
a sole structure component 10, 101 (i.e. the combined 10 and 101) formed as a unitary, one-piece construction (10 is “is coupled...to...101...by sewing, during the molding, or in any other way” (p. 11 lines 24-26) such that the combined 10 and 101 is formed as a unitary, one-piece construction) that includes:
(i) an outsole component (the component of the sole structure component that is configured to contact the ground and is provided below the midsole component identified hereinbelow) that includes a ground-contacting surface (p. 5 line 25) for directly engaging the ground (p. 5 line 25), and
(ii) a midsole component (the component of the sole structure component that is provided above the outsole component and that comprises receptacles 105 and mortises 3a; it is noted the midsole component of Zanzani comprises a portion of 10 and also a portion of 101) located between the outsole component and the strobel structure (Figs. 1-3), the midsole component including a midsole surface (the surface into which mortises 3a and receptacles 105 are provided) including a plurality of sole cavities 3a, 105 (i.e. one cavity is a combined 3a and 103 and as shown generally in the embodiment of Fig. 8; and there are a plurality of such cavities as evidenced in Figs. 1-3) , wherein each of the plurality of sole cavities includes a recess 105 extending into an interior of the sole cavity and defines an undercut (defined by 6 and as generally shown in the embodiment of Fig. 8) within the interior of each of the plurality of sole cavities (as generally shown in the embodiment of Fig. 8),
wherein each of the plurality of sole locking inserts 2a extends into a respective one of the plurality of recesses (p. 7 lines 5-6; Figs. 2-3), wherein each of the plurality of sole locking inserts includes an enlarged free end (the end comprising “enlarged” “heads 5”; p. 8 lines 10-15) positioned to engage a respective undercut (p. 8 lines 20-22 and as generally shown in the embodiment of Fig. 9) and secure each of the plurality of sole locking inserts within a respective one of the plurality of recesses (p. 8 lines 15-19).
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of.
In Zanzani, the sole locking inserts 2a are “provided on a second face of the first layer 9” wherein the “first face” of the strobel structure 9 is “on...102” of the upper (the paragraph spanning p. 10-11).
Looking to Zanzani Fig. 1, sole locking inserts 2a appear to be extending directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections thereof. However, Zanzani does not show the precise structural arrangement of sole locking inserts 2a relative to bottom surface of strobel structure 9 such that it cannot be determined from the drawing alone whether sole locking inserts 21 are extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of. Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill would expect the sole locking inserts to be capable of insertion into mortises to achieve footwear structure assembly as described in p. 7 lines 5-9 if the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of as claimed.
However, Heilhecker teaches (Figs. 1-9) a sole locking insert 24 that extends directly form a bottom surface of a strobel structure 21 as an integral projection thereof (“provided thereon as an integral part or...molded thereon”; col. 1 lines 45-47; Figs. 7-9).
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 footwear structure of Zanzani such that its plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein the sole locking inserts are durably secured to the rest of the footwear via integral attachment to the bottom surface of the strobel structure such that the sole locking inserts are provided on the bottom surface of the strobel structure. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to arrange the plurality of sole locking inserts relative to the strobel structure so as to arrange the sole locking inserts as being provided on the bottom surface of the strobel structure as described in the paragraph spanning p. 10-11 of Zanzani and as shown in Fig. 1 of Zanzani and so as to permit their insertion into mortises to achieve footwear structure assembly as described in p. 7 lines 5-9 of Zanzani and would have expected success in so providing when adopting the specific arrangement wherein the plurality of sole locking inserts extend directly from the bottom surface of the strobel structure as integral projections there of based on the teachings of Heilhecker.
Regarding claim 4:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani further discloses wherein each of the sole locking inserts includes one or more slits (i.e. the slit between teeth 4 is one slit, and each of the sole locking inserts comprises said slit between teeth 4 thereof).
Regarding claim 5:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani further discloses wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes two enlarged sole locking insert components (the two “enlarged” “heads 5” (p. 8 lines 10-15) of each free end).
Regarding claim 6:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani Figs. 1-3 does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes three enlarged sole locking insert components.
However and in further view of Zanzani:
Zanzani as embodied in Figs. 11-35 teaches an enlarged free end (the end of tenon 2b that comprises teeth 4; Figs 11-35) of a sole locking insert 2b (i.e. “tenon...2b”) to engage an undercut 3b (i.e. “mortise...3b”) wherein said enlarged free end comprises six enlarged sole locking insert components 4 (enlarged due to head 5 thereof).
Zanzani further teaches “the tenon 2a, 2b, 2c comprises a plurality of teeth 4...the embodiments illustrated in the accompanying figures have two teeth 4 for each tenon 2a (in the embodiments in Figures 1-10) or six teeth 4 for each tenon 2b, 2c (in the embodiments in Figures 1 1-35), but the number can be any, and therefore it can also be different from the number in the examples mentioned above” (p. 7 line 26 – p. 8 line 5).
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 Zanzani such that each of the plurality of free ends includes three enlarged sole locking insert components in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein each free end is configured to engage a respective undercut via the three enlarged sole locking insert components. One of ordinary skill would expect such an arrangement to work adequately well for this purpose whether there were two sole locking insert components or whether there were three based on the teachings of Zanzani.
Regarding claim 7:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani Figs. 1-3 does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes four enlarged sole locking insert components.
However and in further view of Zanzani:
Zanzani as embodied in Figs. 11-35 teaches an enlarged free end (the end of tenon 2b that comprises teeth 4; Figs 11-35) of a sole locking insert 2b (i.e. “tenon...2b”) to engage an undercut 3b (i.e. “mortise...3b”) wherein said enlarged free end comprises six enlarged sole locking insert components 4 (enlarged due to head 5 thereof).
Zanzani further teaches “the tenon 2a, 2b, 2c comprises a plurality of teeth 4...the embodiments illustrated in the accompanying figures have two teeth 4 for each tenon 2a (in the embodiments in Figures 1-10) or six teeth 4 for each tenon 2b, 2c (in the embodiments in Figures 1 1-35), but the number can be any, and therefore it can also be different from the number in the examples mentioned above” (p. 7 line 26 – p. 8 line 5).
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 Zanzani such that each of the plurality of free ends includes four enlarged sole locking insert components in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein each free end is configured to engage a respective undercut via the three enlarged sole locking insert components. One of ordinary skill would expect such an arrangement to work adequately well for this purpose whether there were two sole locking insert components or whether there were four based on the teachings of Zanzani.
Regarding claim 8:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani further discloses wherein the sole locking inserts engaging their corresponding sole cavities form the only means of fastening foot support component and the sole structure component (p. 2 lines 4-9; p. 16 lines 19-23).
11. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Heilhecker, US 2,183,277] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Auger, US 2010/0319218, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teach The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the foot support component includes an integrally formed heel counter.
However, Auger teaches a foot support component (“upper 104”; para 38) includes an integrally formed heel counter (“heel counter...integrally formed with upper 104”; para 38).
Auger further teaches a heel counter is “for providing support and limiting heel movement in heel region”; para 36.
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 Zanzani such that the foot support component includes an integrally formed heel counter in order to provide support and/or limit heel movement in a heel region, as taught by Auger (para 36).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Heilhecker, US 2,183,277] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Maccano, US 4,811,500, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the upper portion includes lace-engaging openings and the footwear structure further including a lace extending through the lace-engaging openings.
However, Maccano teaches an upper portion 16 includes lace-engaging openings 32 and further including a lace 34 extending through the lace-engaging openings (col. 4 lines 32-39; Figs. 1 and 3).
Maccano further teaches the lace is configured to be “tightened”; col. 2 line 65.
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 footwear structure of Zanzani such that its upper portion includes lace-engaging openings and is further provided with a lace extending through the lace-engaging openings in order to permit a wearer to tighten the upper portion around his foot, as suggested by Maccano (col. 2 line 65).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Heilhecker, US 2,183,277] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Greener, US 2014/0033579, [previously cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; 0.046; or 0.056 cubic inches (paras 23-25). These values are equivalent to 700, 750, and 920 mm3, respectively, which are each less than 1500 mm3.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less.
Regarding claim 10:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; 0.046; or 0.056 cubic inches (paras 23-25). These values are equivalent to 700, 750, and 920 mm3, respectively, which are all within the claimed range.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3 in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3.
Regarding claim 11:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 300 mm3 and 1,200 mm3.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; 0.046; or 0.056 cubic inches (paras 23-25). These values are equivalent to 700, 750, and 920 mm3, respectively, which are all within the claimed range.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 300 mm3 and 1,200 mm3 in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume between 300 mm3 and 1,200 mm3.
Regarding claim 12:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 500 mm3 and 900 mm3.
However, Greener teaches a footwear structure recess within “cap 10” wherein said recess is configured to receive an insert 26 therein. Greener further teaches an interior surface thereof defines a volume of: 0.043; or 0.046 cubic inches (paras 23-24). These values are equivalent to 700, and 750 mm3, respectively, which are both within the claimed range.
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 Zanzani such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 500 mm3 and 900 mm3 in order to yield the predicable result of a footwear structure wherein each recess comprises an interior surface defining a volume capable of receiving an insert having a volume between 300 mm3 and 900 mm3.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] and [Heilhecker, US 2,183,277] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Livne, US 2023/0029846, previously cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker teaches The footwear structure according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.75 to 1.0.
However, Livne teaches a footwear structure wherein “a portion of a protuberance occupies at least 80% of” a “recess area or volume”; para 75.
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 Zanzani such that a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.75 to 1.0 in order to yield the predictable result of providing each recess large enough to receive each respective insert therein while also permitting a range of manufacturing tolerance in insert size and/or position.
Regarding claim 14:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker and Livne teach The footwear structure according to claim 13, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the volume ratio is within the range of 0.75 to 0.99.
However, Livne teaches a footwear structure wherein “a portion of a protuberance occupies at least 80% of” a “recess area or volume”; para 75.
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 Zanzani such that a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.75 to 0.99 in order to yield the predictable result of providing each recess large enough to receive each respective insert therein while also permitting a range of manufacturing tolerance in insert size and/or position.
Regarding claim 15:
Zanzani in view of Heilhecker and Livne teach The footwear structure according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Zanzani does not expressly disclose wherein the volume ratio is within the range of 0.8 to 0.95.
However, Livne teaches a footwear structure wherein “a portion of a protuberance occupies at least 80% of” a “recess area or volume”; para 75.
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 Zanzani such that a volume ratio of an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses to an outer surface of each of the plurality of sole locking inserts is within the range of 0.8 to 0.95 in order to yield the predictable result of providing each recess large enough to receive each respective insert therein while also permitting a range of manufacturing tolerance in insert size and/or position.
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.
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