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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B: Figs. 7A-7C, 8A-8D, 9A-9C and 10A-10E in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are identified in the reply as reading on the elected species.
Claims 1-15 are presented.
The present office action treats claims 1-15 on the merits.
The present office action is a non-final rejection.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/228,813 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-5 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 14-17, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/228,813 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8-9 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 18-19, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/228,813 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/228,813 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/228,813 in view of [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714, provided on the IDS of 03/25/2025].
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 17 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 6 except claim 17 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 1 and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes two enlarged sole locking insert components.
Accordingly, claim 17 of the reference application does not meet the limitation wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes three enlarged sole locking insert components.
However, Zanzani 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, in the alternative, “two teeth 4 for each tenon...Figures 1-10”.
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 claim 17 footwear structure such each of the plurality of free ends includes six enlarged sole locking insert components, as in Zanzani Figs. 11-35, in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein each free end is configured to engage a respective undercut. 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 six based on the teachings of Zanzani. In adopting the modification, one would have arrived at wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes three enlarged sole locking insert components insofar as the claim is open ended, and a structure that has six sole locking insert components comprises three of said six sole locking insert components.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 17 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 7 except claim 17 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 1 and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes two enlarged sole locking insert components.
Accordingly, claim 17 of the reference application does not meet the limitation wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes four enlarged sole locking insert components.
However, Zanzani 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, in the alternative, “two teeth 4 for each tenon...Figures 1-10”.
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 claim 17 footwear structure such each of the plurality of free ends includes six enlarged sole locking insert components, as in Zanzani Figs. 11-35, in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure wherein each free end is configured to engage a respective undercut. 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 six based on the teachings of Zanzani. In adopting the modification, one would have arrived at wherein each of the plurality of free ends includes four enlarged sole locking insert components insofar as the claim is open ended, and a structure that has six sole locking insert components comprises four of said six sole locking insert components.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/228,813 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims would have been obvious over the reference claim.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 19 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 10 except claim 19 of the reference application discloses “wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less”.
Accordingly claim 19 of the reference application 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, per MPEP 2144: “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”, and the range disclosed by claim 19 of the reference application encompasses the somewhat narrower 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 claim 19 footwear structure 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 predictable result of a footwear structure whose recesses are capable of accommodating a respective sole locking insert of a volume of between 100 mm3 to 1,500 mm3.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 19 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 11 except claim 19 of the reference application discloses “wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less”.
Accordingly claim 19 of the reference application does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 300 mm3 to 1,200 mm3.
However, per MPEP 2144: “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”, and the range disclosed by claim 19 of the reference application encompasses the somewhat narrower 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 claim 19 footwear structure such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 300 mm3 to 1,200 mm3 in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure whose recesses are capable of accommodating a respective sole locking insert of a volume of between 300 mm3 to 1,200 mm3.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 19 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 12 except claim 19 of the reference application discloses “wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume of 1,500 mm3 or less”.
Accordingly claim 19 of the reference application does not expressly disclose wherein an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 500 mm3 to 900 mm3.
However, per MPEP 2144: “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”, and the range disclosed by claim 19 of the reference application encompasses the somewhat narrower 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 claim 19 footwear structure such that an interior surface of each of the plurality of recesses defines a volume between 500 mm3 to 900 mm3 in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear structure whose recesses are capable of accommodating a respective sole locking insert of a volume of between 500 mm3 to 900 mm3.
Claims 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20of copending Application No. 18/228,813 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims would have been obvious over the reference claim.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 20 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 14 except claim 20 of the reference application discloses “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”.
Accordingly claim 20 of the reference application 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 0.99.
However, per MPEP 2144: “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”, and the range disclosed by claim 20 of the reference application encompasses the somewhat narrower 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 claim 20 footwear structure 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 a footwear structure wherein each recess permit slight movement of a sole locking insert during the process of insertion and to further permit retention of the sole locking insert after insertion.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 20 of the reference application discloses the subject matter of claim 15 except claim 20 of the reference application discloses “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”.
Accordingly claim 20 of the reference application 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 0.8 to 0.95.
However, per MPEP 2144: “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”, and the range disclosed by claim 20 of the reference application encompasses the somewhat narrower 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 claim 20 footwear structure 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 a footwear structure wherein each recess permit slight movement of a sole locking insert during the process of insertion and to further permit retention of the sole locking insert after insertion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2: “the overall footwear structure” should be --the footwear structure--
Claim 3 line 3: “extending thru” should be --extending through--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites “the shoe component parts”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is not which component part(s) the claim is referring to and/or whether the claim is meant to introduce one or more newly claimed component part(s).
For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is met if the sole locking inserts engaging their corresponding sole cavities form the only means of fastening the foot support component the sole structure component.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714, 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).
Regarding claim 4:
Zanzani discloses 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 discloses 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 8:
Zanzani discloses 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 the shoe component parts together (p. 2 lines 4-9; p. 16 lines 19-23).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] in view of [Auger, US 2010/0319218, newly cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Zanzani discloses 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 footwear structure of 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] in view of [Maccano, US 4,811,500, newly cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Zanzani discloses 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 overall footwear structure further including a lace extending thru 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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714].
Regarding claim 6:
Zanzani discloses 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 footwear structure of Zanzani Figs. 1-3 such 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 discloses 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 footwear structure of Zanzani Figs. 1-3 such 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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Zanzani, WO 2020/079714] in view of [Greener, US 2014/0033579, newly cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Zanzani discloses 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 footwear structure of 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 discloses 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 footwear structure of 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 discloses 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 footwear structure of 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 discloses 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 footwear structure of 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] in view of [Livne, US 2023/0029846, newly cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Zanzani discloses 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 footwear structure of 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 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 footwear structure of 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 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 footwear structure of 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
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