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 filed on 9/30/2025 has been received; Claims 1, 3-12 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 & 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbett (US 2010/0018078).
Regarding Claim 1, Bobbett discloses a sandal (Figures 1-4) comprising: a footbed (110); and a toe post (200) associated with the footbed, the toe post being configured to engage with a user's first toe and second toe (Figures 1-4 & Para. 30), the toe post comprising :a vertical central axis (CA, see annotated Figure 3B below); an asymmetrical configuration (Figure 3B), created by the toe post's lateral sides curving inwards towards the vertical central axis (Figure 3B), and a first distance from the vertical central axis to a center outer edge configured to be adjacent to the user's first toe being larger than a second distance from the vertical central axis to a center outer edge configured to be adjacent to the user's second toe (Figure 3B); a core made from a first material (Para. 24); and a cladding disposed over the core of the toe post (Para. 24), the cladding being made of a second material that is softer than the first material (Para. 24) and a twisted configuration (Para. 24 & 30 & Figure 3B, due to the curved and curving nature of and anatomical contours of the toepiece; it is a twisted configuration) wherein a top of the toe post is twisted about the vertical central axis relative to a bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32) and the twisted configuration extends throughout the full length of the toe post (Figure 3B); wherein the top of the toe post for a right foot is twisted counterclockwise relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32, “mimic contours of a foot”) and for a left foot is twisted clockwise relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32, “mimic contours of a foot”). If there is any doubt Bobbett discloses a twisted configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bobbett by having a more twisted configuration to assist in performing the intended functions for each foot. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the toe post as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding Claims 3 & 4, Bobbett discloses the top of the toe post is twisted relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32). Bobbett does not specifically discloses the toe post is twisted by 5-30 degrees. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of twisted rotation for the toe post in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the angle involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Bobbett discloses the core and the cladding form a monolithic toe post (Para. 24).
Regarding Claim 6, Bobbett discloses a toe post anchor (205) associated with the footbed and with the toe post (Figure 4), a pair of straps associated with the toe post (105), and, a pair of strap anchors associated with the footbed (Figure 4 the end of straps 105), each strap anchor of the pair of anchors being further associated with a corresponding strap of the pair of straps (Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 7, Bobbett discloses a sandal (Figures 1-4) comprising: a footbed (11); and a toe post (200) associated with the footbed, the toe post being configured to engage with a user's first toe and second toe (Figures 1-4 & Para. 30), the toe post comprising: a vertical central axis (CA, see annotated Figure 3B below); and an asymmetrical configuration (Figure 3B), created by the toe post's lateral sides curving inwards towards the vertical central axis (Figure 3B), and a first distance from the vertical central axis to a center outer edge configured to be adjacent to the user's first toe being larger than a second distance from the vertical central axis to a center outer edge configured to be adjacent to the user's second toe (Figure 3B); and a twisted configuration (Para. 24 & 30 & Figure 3B, due to the curved and curving nature of and anatomical contours of the toepiece; it is a twisted configuration) wherein a top of the toe post is twisted about the vertical central axis relative to a bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32) and the twisted configuration extends throughout the full length of the toe post (Figure 3B). If there is any doubt Bobbett discloses a twisted configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bobbett by having a more twisted configuration to assist in performing the intended functions for each foot. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the toe post as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding Claim 8, Bobbett discloses the top of the toe post for a right foot is twisted counterclockwise relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32, “mimic contours of a foot”) and for a left foot is twisted clockwise relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32, “mimic contours of a foot”).
Regarding Claims 9 & 10, Bobbett discloses the top of the toe post is twisted relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 32). Bobbett does not specifically discloses the toe post is twisted by 5-30 degrees. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of twisted rotation for the toe post in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the angle involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, Bobbett discloses a sandal (Figures 1-4) comprising: a footbed (110); and a toe post (200) associated with the footbed, the toe post being configured to engage with a user's first toe and second toe (Figures 1-4 & Para. 30), the toe post comprising: a core made from a first material (Para. 24); and a cladding disposed over the core of the toe post (Para. 24), the cladding being made of a second material that is softer than the first material (Para. 24) and a twisted configuration (Para. 24 & 30 & Figure 3B, due to the curved and curving nature of and anatomical contours of the toepiece; it is a twisted configuration) wherein a top of the toe post is twisted about the vertical central axis relative to a bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32) and the twisted configuration extends throughout the full length of the toe post (Figure 3B); wherein the top of the toe post for a right foot is twisted counterclockwise relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32, “mimic contours of a foot”) and for a left foot is twisted clockwise relative to the bottom of the toe post (Para. 30-32, “mimic contours of a foot”). If there is any doubt Bobbett discloses a twisted configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bobbett by having a more twisted configuration to assist in performing the intended functions for each foot. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the toe post as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding Claim 12, Bobbett discloses the core and the cladding form a monolithic toe post (Para. 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732