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 07/24/2026 is acknowledged.
For purpose of record clarity, it is noted the status identifier and markup of claim 3 in the reply of 07/24/2026 are incorrect.
The correct status identifier for claim 3 as presented in the reply of 07/24/2026 is (Currently amended), and the correct markup for claim 3 line 8 is:
region and the sole metatarsal region, and a seam toe region adjacent both the upper toe region and
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS (see p. 8-15 of the reply) of 07/24/2026 are fully considered.
Although not specifically argued, it is noted the amendment of 07/24/2026 overcomes the claim objection raised in the Office action of 03/26/2026.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the 35 USC 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 17 and claims dependent thereon (see p. 8-15 the reply of 07/24/2026) are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Independent claims 1 and 17, and dependent claims 2-5, 12-16 and 18-23 stand rejected under §103 as being unpatentable over Perrault (US 2018/0271213) in view of Wawrousek (US 2014/0182170), Wilson (US 2010/0122472) and Weber (US 10206449). Favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Both independent claims 1 and 17 set forth a requirement that the shoe must meet a torsional stiffness that is at least 100 % greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe that is devoid of [a welt (claim 1)] [a welt and devoid of a heel clip (claim 17)] where the torsional stiffness is a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (100) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary. None of the references teach or suggest a shoe having this material property.
As the office acknowledges, Perrault does not describe any particular test method whereby torsional stiffness is measured in comparison to another shoe absent a welt (as set forth in claim 1) or absent a welt and a heel clip (as set forth in claim 17). However, the office's reliance on Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber for the missing teachings is misplaced.
Regardless of the office's reliance on Wawrousek for alleged teachings of a "welt", the Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber references fail to provide any teaching related to the mechanical property of torsional stiffness that is at least 100 % greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe that is devoid of [a welt (claim 1)] [a welt and devoid of a heel clip (claim 17)] where the torsional stiffness is a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (100) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary. Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber may describe the need for a shoe with torsional resistance, but neither Perrault, Wawrousek nor Wilson describe a shoe with a material property as set forth in claims 1 and 17. In particular, neither Perrault nor Wawrousek nor Wilson nor Weber describe a shoe with a material property of torsional stiffness based on welt and a welt and a heel clip, nor in terms of a comparison shoe, nor in terms of a comparison of a shoe that is devoid of [a welt (claim 1)] [a welt and devoid of a heel clip (claim 17)].
The office action cobbles together isolated portions of the references in an attempt to some how establish a shoe with a mechanical property of torsional stiffness that is at least 100 % greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe that is devoid of [a welt (claim 1)] [a welt and devoid of a heel clip (claim 17)] where the torsional stiffness is a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (100) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary. The office action cites passages in Perrault, Wawrousek and Wilson where torsional resistance is discussed. However, none of the passages teach or suggest a shoe meeting the material property set forth in claims 1 and 17.
The office argues that Perrault at least suggests that the shoe has a torsional stiffness due to both the combined welt and heel clip and also other component(s) of the shoe including at least the sole having such elements of "torsional stiffness." Office action at pp. 12, 43. However, Perrault does not describe any baseline torsional stiffness nor does it describe a comparison of torsional stiffness relative to a comparison shoe. Perrault discusses adjusting zones or portions of the midsole to adjust torsional stiffness as desired via struts defining interconnected unit cells. Perrault at para. [0090],[0093],[0170]. However, Perrault fails to quantify any level of torsional stiffness provided in the shoe via such struts defining interconnected unit cells or via the rim 314, let alone a comparison of any such torsional stiffness to a comparison shoe.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with the rejection as applied. The rejection does not state Perrault “quantify any level of torsional stiffness provided in the shoe via such struts defining interconnected unit cells or via the rim 314, let alone a comparison of any such torsional stiffness to a comparison shoe” as argued. Rather, the rejection states the welt of Perrault and heel clip of the modified Perrault are perimeter stability; that an element overlying the sole for stability is capable of torque transference; and that stability may protect a wearer’s foot from injury (see p. 10 and p. 41 of the Office action of 03/26/2026 and rejection below).
Applicant argues:
Wawrousek is similarly deficient. It mentions is passing that data form the system may be used to determine locations on the outsole plate where greater or lesser degrees of flexibility (e.g., longitudinal, lateral, and/or torsional flexibility) are desired, where greater or lesser degrees of stiffness are desired, where greater or lesser degrees of structural support are required, and where greater or lesser degrees of protection are required. Wawrousek at para. [0271]. Wawrousek fails to quantify any level of torsional stiffness provided in the shoe via the data generated by the system, let alone a comparison of any such torsional stiffness to a comparison shoe.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with the rejection as applied. The rejection does not state Wawrousek “quantify any level of torsional stiffness provided in the shoe via the data generated by the system, let alone a comparison of any such torsional stiffness to a comparison shoe.” as argued. Rather, the rejection states the 745 of Wawrousek is separate from a sole and separate from an upper (see p. 9 and p. 39 of the Office action of 03/26/2026 and rejection below).
Applicant argues:
Wilson is also deficient. While Wilson describes the need for providing torsional resistance during forefoot eversion in the range of 0 to 15 degrees relative to the heel and in the range of 0 degrees to about 35 degrees relative to the during forefoot inversion, this does not describe a material property of an amount of the torsional resistance as recited in claims 1 and 17, nor an amount of the torsional resistance in comparison to a shoe without welt or without a welt and a heel clip. Wilson is merely describing a torsion control element disposed in the sole that may provide one level of resistance as the forefoot is subjected to a twisting force relative to the rearfoot in a first direction and a second level of resistance as the forefoot is subjected to a twisting force relative to the rearfoot in a second direction. See, e.g., Wilson at Abstr., paras. [0058],[0069],[0072], [0091].
The office cites to Wilson para. [0119] and Fig. 38 as showing a measurement of torsional resistance. However, Wilson Fig. 38 shows a profile of a shoe with a torsional control
element and how the torsional control element provides "a first resistance level in one direction (e.g., eversion) and a second resistance level in a second direction (e.g., inversion)." And, no comparison is made to a comparison shoe. Wilson Para. [0123] and Fig. 39 is a depiction of a profile for a shoe with another torsional control element providing a first resistance level in one direction (e.g., eversion) and a second resistance level in a second direction (e.g., inversion). Again, no comparison is made to a comparison shoe. And the cited description and drawing figures of Wilson do not relate to a welt or the combination of a welt and heel clip. Thus, Wilson merely describes how a torsional control device disposed in the sole can provide levels of resistance in two different directions, and the torsional control device is not at all related to the welt or a heel clip. Accordingly, Wilson neither describes a shoe with a material property as set forth in claims 1 and 17 nor an amount of the torsional resistance in comparison to a shoe without a welt or a welt and a heel clip.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive.
As stated in the Office action of 03/26/2026, the welt of Perrault and heel clip of the modified Perrault are perimeter stability; that an element overlying the sole for stability is capable of torque transference; and that stability may protect a wearer’s foot from injury (see p. 10 and p. 41 of the Office action of 03/26/2026 and rejection below), and it would have been obvious to have modified the welt such that it is configured to provide torsional stability (emphasis provided by Examiner) whereby the torsional stiffness of the shoe exceeds the torsional stiffness being a torque sufficient to rotate ten degrees as claimed of a comparison shoe identical to the shoe except the comparison shoe is devoid of a welt to prevent injury based on the teachings of Wilson (see p. 11 and p. 42-43 of the Office action of 03/26/2026; see also rejections below), wherein it is noted Wilson teaches torsional resistance during forefoot eversion relative to heel in the range of 0 about 15 degrees and forefoot inversion relative to heel of 0 to about 35 degrees and further teaches measurement of torsional stiffness at ten degrees (as also stated in p. 11 and p. 42-43 of the Office action of 03/26/2026 and repeated in the rejections below).
Applicant’s specific argument that in Wilson “no comparison is made to a comparison shoe” is fully considered but is not persuasive insofar as a person of ordinary skill would recognize that a shoe comprising a given element that is configured to provide torsional stability by virtue of the torsional stiffness thereof is a shoe that has a torsional stiffness that is greater than another shoe that is absent said given element; in other words, in order for the welt or welt and heel clip to provide torsional stability, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the welt or welt and heel clip adds to—as opposed to, say, subtracting from or equaling—the torsional stiffness of the shoe.
Applicant argues:
Weber fails to make up for the deficiencies of Perrault, Wawrousek, and Wilson, when considered in combination therewith. Weber is directed to a sandal that has a biasing member in the sole to bias the heel away from the ground surface. While Weber discusses that the biasing member may be configured to provide the sole assembly with a lateral bending stiffness, a longitudinal bending stiffness and/or a torsional stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the insert, Weber is directed to a spring element formed in the sole of the shoe - not a welt or the combination of a welt and heel clip. Regardless of whether Weber makes a comparison between a sandal with a spring insert and a sandal without an insert, Weber nonetheless fails to quantify any amount of the torsional stiffness present in the sandal with and without the insert - let alone in the manner set forth in claims 1 and 17.
Weber does not describe how to measure the torsional stiffness so as to quantify the amount of torsional stiffness present in a sandal with the spring insert in comparison to the identical sandal without a spring insert. The reference to a flexural test such as ASTM D790 does not provide any teaching of the material property of the shoe as claimed in claims 1 and 17, but only that the "spring insert may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa." In other words, Weber describes the material that is used to make the insert may have the particular stated flexural moduli, but Weber does not describe what level of torsional stiffness is present in the sandal once that material is made into a spring insert and disposed in the sole of the sandal and how that level compares to a sandal without the spring insert. Further, this has nothing to do with the claimed shoe with and without the welt or with and without the welt and heel clip.
The office alleges that one considering Weber would arrive at the claimed shoe with and without the welt [or welt and heel clip] based on a result-effective variable and the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation to provide the desired shoe property. This is misplaced. Weber is directed to a spring insert formed as a shank in the sole of a sandal. Weber has no teachings relative to a welt for attachment of the sole and the upper nor a heel clip. Given the construction of the sandal of Weber, there is no suggestion of teachings relative to a welt for attachment of the sole and the upper nor a heel clip. Even if one were to perform routine experimentation based on Weber as alleged in the office action, such experimentation would relate to the material used for a spring insert for a shank in a sandal. The office provides no reference with a teaching as to how one would arrive at a shoe with the material property of claims 1 and 17. Even assuming one could vary the flexural modulus of the material of the spring insert in order to create a sandal with a torsion stiffness that is 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of a comparison sandal without the insert, such relates to the spring insert for a shank of sandal. Of course there is no teaching in Weber, or any other cited reference, that the torsional stiffness is a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary. And because none of the cited reference quantify an amount of torsional stiffness in comparison to a comparison shoe with and without a welt [or welt and heel clip], there can be no motivation to perform routine experimentation to arrive at a shoe construction with the material property of claims 1 and 17 except by hindsight in view of applicant's own disclosure. Accordingly, the office's argument of result-effective variable is not pertinent to the subject matter of the claims regardless of the combination of Weber with Perrault, Wawrousek and Wilson.
For all of these reasons, Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber fail to render the subject matter of claims 1-5 and 12- 23 unpatentable, and favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Weber does not relate to the torsional stiffness of a welt or a combined welt and heel clip is fully considered but is not persuasive insofar as Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe, as stated in the Office action of 03/26/2026 (see p. 13-14 and p. 45 thereof) and repeated hereinbelow and the welt or combined welt and heel clip are configured to add torsional bending stiffness as also stated in the same Office action (see p. 12 and p. 43 thereof) and repeated hereinbelow. That Weber does not state the element configured to add torsional bending stiffness is a welt or combined welt and heel clip is not a persuasive reason as to why a person of ordinary skill would not use the teaching to modify the prior art set forth in the rejections of 03/26/2026 and repeated hereinbelow. In other words, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the teachings of Weber directed to desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe would be applicable to the welt or the welt and heel clip of the prior art insofar as the welt of the prior art is an element configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and the combined welt and heel clip of the prior art is an element configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe.
Applicant’s specific argument that “there can be no motivation to perform routine experimentation to arrive at a shoe construction with the material property of claims 1 and 17 except by hindsight in view of applicant's own disclosure” is fully considered but is not persuasive because the rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2145 which states in relevant part “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper”.
Applicant argues:
In the office action, dependent claim 6 was rejected as being obvious in view of the
combination of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson, Weber and Hynes (US 4358903). Hynes fails to make up for the deficiencies of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber as described above as to claim 1. Hynes is directed to a wedge bonded welting for non-leather materials and fails to supply teachings for the material property of the shoe set forth in claim 1. For these reasons,
claim 6 is patentable over the cited references, and favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
In the office action, dependent claims 7-8 were rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson, Weber and Harkins (US 6205604). Harkins fails to make up for the deficiencies of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber as described above as to claim 1. Harkins is directed to a pre-cemented welt with an adhesive that can be activated during the shoe production, and fails to supply teachings for the material property of the shoe set forth in claim 1. For these reasons, claims 7-8 are patentable over the cited references, and favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
In the office action, dependent claims 7 and 9 were rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson, Weber and La Rochelle (US 2013/0205624). La Rochelle fails to make up for the deficiencies of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber as described above as to claim 1. La Rochelle is directed to a puncture-resistant layer connected to the sole so as to provide puncture protection for the foot of the wearer where the puncture resistant layer has an outer edge that extends beyond at least a portion of the inner perimeter of the item of footwear defined by a junction between the upper and the sole. La Rochelle fails to supply teachings for the material property of the shoe set forth in claim 1. For these reasons, claims 7 and 9 are patentable over the cited references, and favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
In the office action, dependent claim 10 was rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson, Weber and Eckstrom (US 4651443). Eckstrom fails to make up for the deficiencies of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber as described above as to claim 1. Eckstrom is directed to a welt for a shoe that has a sole made from a urethane foam, and fails to supply teachings for the material property of the shoe set forth in claim 1. For these reasons, claim 10 is patentable over the cited references, and favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
In the office action, dependent claim 11 was rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson, Weber and Alianiello (US 2502774). Alianiello fails to make up for the deficiencies of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber as described above as to claim 1. Alianiello is directed to cushion inserts for the insole and welt construction to prevent seepage of water between the upper and sole and into the cushion inserts of the insole, and fails to supply teachings for the material property of the shoe set forth in claim 1. For these reasons, claim 11 is patentable over the cited references, and favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are directed to argued features of claim 1. As stated above in addressing Applicant’s arguments attacking those references relied upon to reject claim 1, Examiner maintains that the rejection of claim 1 is proper; see above Examiner’s replies to those arguments. Applicant’s subsequent arguments directed to those references relied upon in rejecting the argued dependent claims are therefore fully considered but are not persuasive because Examiner maintains there are no deficiencies in the combination of Perrault, Wawrousek, Wilson and Weber relied upon to reject claim 1 to cure.
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) 1-5 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213] in view of [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449].
Regarding claim 1:
Perrault discloses (Figs. 3-7):
a sole 320 (i.e. “three dimensional mesh 320”; para 101);
a welt 314 (i.e. “rim 314...provide stability...and[] facilitate attachment...to...upper”; para 101);
the welt 314 comprising at least one piece (Figs. 3, 4, 5A, 7), the welt being adjacent the sole (Figs. 3, 4, 7) and being secured the sole (Figs. 3, 4, 7);
the sole 320 having a sole heel end (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a sole toe end (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole extending along a shoe axis from the sole heel end to the sole toe end (Fig. 5A), the sole having a sole heel region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole midfoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole forefoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole ball region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole metatarsal region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), and a sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole heel region extending longitudinally from the sole heel end to the sole midfoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole midfoot region extending longitudinally from the sole heel region to the sole forefoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole forefoot region extending longitudinally from the sole midfoot region to the sole ball region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole ball region extending longitudinally from the sole forefoot region to the sole metatarsal region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole metatarsal region extending longitudinally from the sole ball region to the sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole toe region extending longitudinally from the sole metatarsal region to the sole toe end (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole having a lateral side extending from the sole heel region to the sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial side extending from the sole heel region to the sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole extending transversely from the lateral side to the medial side (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole heel region having a lateral heel portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial heel portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole midfoot region having a lateral midfoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial midfoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole forefoot region having a lateral forefoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial forefoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole ball region having a lateral ball portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial ball portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole metatarsal region having a lateral metatarsal portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial metatarsal portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole toe region having a lateral toe portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial toe portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole having a heel-widest portion (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed), the heel-widest portion being the portion of the sole having the greatest width in the sole heel region from the medial side to the lateral side (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed), the sole having a ball-widest portion (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed), the ball-widest portion being the portion of the sole having the greatest width in the sole ball region from the medial side of the sole to the lateral side of the sole (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed);
the sole 320 being a 3-D printed (“Three dimensional mesh...formed using an additive manufacturing process, such as but not limited to, a continuous liquid interface production process, selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, selective heat sintering, stereo lithography, fused deposition modeling, or 3D-printing in general”; para 171) sole comprising a plurality of interconnected cells 322 (i.e. “interconnected...cells 322”; para 102), each cell of the plurality of interconnected cells being connected to at least one adjacent cell of the plurality of interconnected cells (para 102), the sole 320 having a sole top surface (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c) and a sole bottom surface (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c), the sole having a periphery (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c) extending between the sole top surface and the sole bottom surface (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c); and
wherein said sole 320 has a torsional stiffness (structs 324 of sole have a “torsional stiffness” (para 78), and the sole comprises “interconnected...cells” (para 78) whereby “forces and torques” are configured to be provided thereon in the manner described directed to the embodiment of para 189 such sole 320 has a torsional stiffness).
Perrault Figs. 3-7 does not expressly disclose:
A shoe comprising:
an upper secured to the sole.
the welt being adjacent both the sole and the upper
wherein said shoe has a torsional stiffness.
However and in further view of Perrault:
Perrault Figs. 1-2 teaches combining a sole 130 with a separate upper 120 secured to (para 86; Figs. 1-2) the sole 130.
Perrault Figs. 3-7 teaches the welt 314 is to “facilitate attachment...to...upper”; para 101.
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 sole and welt of Perrault Figs. 3-7 such that they are combined with a separate upper secured to the sole so as to yield a shoe, the welt being adjacent both the sole and the upper in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear configured to underlie and cover a wearer’s foot sole and also portions of his foot above his foot sole; the sole being configured to underlie a wearer’s foot and the upper being configured to cover upper portions of a wearer’s foot.
In adopting the modification, one would have arrived at the welt comprising at least one piece separate from the upper (insofar as sole and welt are combined with a separate upper as explained in the paragraph preceding this paragraph in the present Office action); wherein said shoe has a torsional stiffness in that “forces and torques” (in the manner described directed to the embodiment of para 189) are configured to be provided onto the sole thereof wherein the struts 324 of said sole have “torsional stiffness” (para 78).
Perrault does not expressly disclose the welt comprising at least one piece separate from the sole and separate from the upper, the welt being adjacent both the sole and the upper and being secured to at least one of the sole and the upper.
Perrault does teach a pair of pieces (i.e. “midsole” and “outsole”) configured to underlie a wearer’s foot as being separate from each other: “midsole 130 and outsole 140 may be discrete components that are formed separately and attached” (para 100); “midsole 300 and outsole 316 may be manufactured separately attached, e.g., with an adhesive” (para 123).
Perrault further teaches
However, Perrault does not expressly disclose the piece of welt 314 as being separate from sole 320 as claimed.
However, Wawrousek teaches a welt 745 (i.e. “plate[] 745 can be integrally formed with (or affixed to) the midsole 500 to provide additional structure and support to the upper surface 555...plate 745 comprising a band of material extending around an outer perimeter of an upper surface 555 of a midsole 500 is shown in FIG. 50. Plate 745 may provide...a solid surface onto which an upper of a shoe can be adhered or otherwise affixed to” (para 245).
In Wawrousek, the welt 745 is separate (i.e. “affixed to” (para 245) as opposed to being “integrally formed” with) from a sole 500 and separate from (as evidenced by an “upper” being capable of being “adhered or otherwise affixed to” (para 245)) an upper.
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 Perrault such that its welt piece is separate from the sole, as in Wawrousek, in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose three components (i.e. welt, sole, and upper) are capable of being manufactured separately and subsequently attached together for the purpose(s) of:
i) permitting shoe assembly in a process comprising a first step of attaching the welt and upper followed by a subsequent step of attaching the combined welt and upper to the sole and/or
ii) permitting a manufacturer to leverage plural machines, processes, and/or manufacturing sites whereby a first machine, process, and/or manufacturing site is desirable for producing the welt and a second machine, process, and/or manufacturing site is preferable for producing the sole.
Perrault does not expressly disclose the torsional stiffness of said shoe being at least 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe, the first comparison shoe being identical to said shoe except the first comparison shoe is devoid of a welt, the torsional stiffness being a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (10°) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary.
In further view of Perrault:
Perrault teaches “torsional stiffness” of struts that define the sole is appropriate for “customizing (tailoring)...to an individual’s, or group of individual’s needs” (para 78) further wherein “torques” are configured to be “transferred to” a sole (para 189).
Moreover and in further view of Perrault: the welt 314 is to “provide stability for the perimeter” (para 101) and, as embodied in para 189 and Fig. 21, “increased stability” of Perrault Fig. 21 is achieved via the “transfer of forces and torques” to a sole 2120 via a 2-D interface between sole 2120 and the peripheral structure 2140 overlying said sole: “interface...arranged in two dimensions” and overlying “cells...at edge 2124” and also cells “adjacent” thereto but “not at...edge...2124”; para 189; Fig. 21.
Accordingly, Perrault para 101 teaches welt 314 is for perimeter stability, and Perrault para 189 teaches an element overlying the sole for stability is capable of torque transference.
However, Perrault does not expressly disclose the welt is configured to contribute to the torsional stiffness of the shoe as claimed, nor does Perrault describe in specificity any particular test method whereby torsional stiffness, in aggregate, is measured in comparison to another shoe absent the welt.
Nevertheless, in Perrault, the welt 314 is for stability, and Perrault does teach “Stability provided by an article of footwear may protect a wearer's foot from injury, such as spraining his or her ankle” (para 74).
Wilson teaches a shoe (“article of footwear”; Abstract) wherein “torsional resistance” is provided “through a range of rotation of the foot” wherein “torsional resistance” is provided “during...forefoot eversion...in the range of 0 degrees to about 15 degrees relative to the heel, and in the range of 0 degrees to about 35 degrees relative to the heel during forefoot inversion” (para 57).
Wilson further teaches that “During physical activities, twisting forces acting on the foot may result in the forefoot of the wearer rotating relative to the rearfoot. As shown in FIG. 1 a, the foot may articulate such that eversion of the foot occurs, resulting in the forefoot rotating outwardly relative to the rearfoot. As shown in FIG. 1 b, the foot may also articulate such that inversion of the forefoot occurs, resulting in the forefoot rotating inwardly relative to the rearfoot. ¶ As shown in FIGS. 1 a and 1 b, it may be desirable for an article of footwear to provide torsional resistance through a range of rotation of the foot” (paras 56-57).
Wilson further teaches “There are numerous muscles, bones, and joints that contribute to the torsional movement of the foot, and various athletic maneuvers can create forces acting upon the these muscles, bones, and joints. Depending on the activity, some resistance to these forces may be desirable to prevent injury while not sacrificing the necessary freedom of movement to adequately perform the activity. For example, in sports like tennis and basketball, in which a participant may a make sudden change of direction, the foot may be subjected to forces which promote torsional movements. It may be desirable to resist these movements in one direction to prevent injury” (para 2).
Wilson further teaches the measurement of torsional stiffness (i.e. the “resistance” (para 119) to torsion as “a function of the rotational angle”) at ten degree rotation (para 119; Fig. 38).
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 Perrault such that its welt is configured to provide torsional stability whereby the torsional stiffness of said shoe exceeds the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe, the first comparison shoe being identical to said shoe except the first comparison shoe is devoid of a welt, the torsional stiffness being a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (10°) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary, in order to prevent injury to a wearer when the foot undergoes torsional movements upon directional change while using the shoe, as suggested by Wilson (para 2), wherein, it is noted, that injury prevention afforded by stability is a motivation found within Perrault (para 74) and that the welt of Perrault is for “stability” (para 101).
Regarding the specific limitation of the torsional stiffness of said shoe being at least 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of the first comparison shoe.
In the modified Perrault, the welt is configured for providing torsional stiffness and the torsional stability afforded thereby (see above). Perrault further teaches a sole itself is capable of providing “support and stability” at a “perimeter zone” thereof (para 154). Attention is further drawn to Perrault para 78 which teaches that the sole itself comprises struts of a “torsional stiffness” (para 78) such that Perrault at least suggests that torsional stiffness and/or stability is capable of being provided by the sole itself. Thus the modified Perrault – by virtue of having the welt configured for providing stiffness and also the sole which has elements of “torsional stiffness”—at least suggests that the shoe has a torsional stiffness due to both the welt and also other component(s) of the shoe including at least the sole having such elements of “torsional stiffness”.
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the welt relative to a comparison shoe without the welt is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of the first comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt is configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 100% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt as claimed.
Regarding claim 2:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Perrault further discloses wherein the welt constitutes a single, one-piece member (Figs. 3, 5A).
Regarding claim 3:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Perrault does not meet the limitation
wherein the upper comprises an upper heel region, an upper midfoot region, an upper forefoot region, an upper ball region, an upper metatarsal region, and an upper toe region, the sole and upper defining a seam, the seam having a seam heel region adjacent both the upper heel region and the sole heel region, a seam midfoot region adjacent both the upper midfoot region and the sole midfoot region, a seam forefoot region adjacent both the upper forefoot region and the sole forefoot region, a seam ball region adjacent both the upper ball region and the sole ball region, a seam metatarsal region adjacent both the upper metatarsal region and the sole metatarsal region, and a sole toe region adjacent both the upper toe region and the sole toe region; and wherein the welt extends along and covers the seam heel region, the seam midfoot region, the seam forefoot region, the seam ball region, the seam metatarsal region, and the seam toe region.
However and in further view of Perrault:
Perrault as embodied in Fig. 2 teaches an upper comprising an upper heel region (Fig. 2 and in the same way the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1 of the disclosure as filed), an upper midfoot region (Fig. 2 and in the same way the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1 of the disclosure as filed), an upper forefoot region (Fig. 2 and in the same way the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1 of the disclosure as filed), an upper ball region (Fig. 2 and in the same way the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1 of the disclosure as filed), an upper metatarsal region (Fig. 2 and in the same way the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1 of the disclosure as filed), and an upper toe region (Fig. 2 and in the same way the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1 of the disclosure as filed).
And in Perrault Figs. 3-7, the welt 314 is “disposed around all...of the perimeter of top side 310” (para 101; Fig. 5a) such that welt 314 is configured to extend along and cover seam regions as claimed and also configured to be secured to the upper by virtue of its extending along and covering said seam regions.
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 Perrault such that the upper comprises an upper heel region, an upper midfoot region, an upper forefoot region, an upper ball region, an upper metatarsal region, and an upper toe region; the welt secured to the upper such that the sole and upper defining a seam, the seam having a seam heel region adjacent both the upper heel region and the sole heel region, a seam midfoot region adjacent both the upper midfoot region and the sole midfoot region, a seam forefoot region adjacent both the upper forefoot region and the sole forefoot region, a seam ball region adjacent both the upper ball region and the sole ball region, a seam metatarsal region adjacent both the upper metatarsal region and the sole metatarsal region, and a sole toe region adjacent both the upper toe region and the sole toe region; and wherein the welt extends along and covers the seam heel region, the seam midfoot region, the seam forefoot region, the seam ball region, the seam metatarsal region, and the seam toe region in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose upper is configured to cover upper portions of the wearer’s foot at heel, midfoot, forefoot, ball, metatarsal, and toe regions thereof further wherein the sole and upper are durably secured to each other by the seam and along and throughout the seam heel region, the seam midfoot region, the seam forefoot region, the seam ball region, the seam metatarsal region, and the seam toe region.
Regarding claim 4:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault further meets the limitation wherein the welt is secured to both the sole (as explained above in addressing claim 1) and the upper (as explained above in addressing claim 3).
Regarding claim 5:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault as applied to claim 3 does not meet the limitation wherein the welt is bonded to the sole using an adhesive.
However and in further view of Perrault:
Perrault teaches the bonding of plural shoe components together via adhesive (para 123).
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 Perrault such that the welt is bonded to the sole using an adhesive in order to yield a shoe whose welt and sole are durable secured to each other by the adhesive.
Regarding claim 12:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault as applied to claim 1 does not meet the limitation further comprising a heel clip, the heel clip comprising at least one piece separate from the sole, separate from the upper, and separate from the welt, the heel clip being secured to at least one of the sole and the upper in at least the sole heel region.
However and in further view of Perrault:
Perrault Fig. 21 teaches a heel clip 2130 comprising a piece 2130 separate from a sole 2120 and separate from a welt 2150, the heel clip 2130 secured to the sole (via at least 2140) in a sole heel region.
Perrault further teaches the heel clip “encompasses a heel of a wearer” (para 188) and is configured “to provide increased stability” (para 189).
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 Perrault such that it is provided with a heel clip, the heel clip comprising at least one piece separate from the sole, separate from the upper, and separate from the welt, the heel clip being secured to at least one of the sole and the upper in at least the sole heel region in order to provide increased stability, as taught by Perrault (para 189).
Regarding claim 13:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault as applied to claim 1 does not meet the limitation wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 150% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
In further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the welt relative to a comparison shoe without the welt is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 150% greater than the torsional stiffness of the first comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt is configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 150% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt as claimed.
Regarding claim 14:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault as applied to claim 1 does not meet the limitation wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 200% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
In further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the welt relative to a comparison shoe without the welt is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 200% greater than the torsional stiffness of the first comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt is configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 200% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt as claimed.
Regarding claim 15:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault as applied to claim 1 does not meet the limitation wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 250% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
In further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the welt relative to a comparison shoe without the welt is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 250% greater than the torsional stiffness of the first comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt is configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 250% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt as claimed.
Regarding claim 16:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Perrault as applied to claim 1 does not meet the limitation wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 300% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
In further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the welt relative to a comparison shoe without the welt is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 300% greater than the torsional stiffness of the first comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt is configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 300% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213], [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Hynes, US 4,358,903].
Regarding claim 6:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt comprises leather.
Hynes teaches a shoe (Title) wherein a welt comprises leather (col. 1 line 27). Hynes further teaches “advantages” of “leather welting” include “strength” (col. 1 lines 31 – 40).
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 Perrault such that the welt comprises leather in order to render the welt strong, as taught by Hynes (col. 1 lines 31-40).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213], [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Harkins, US 6,205,604].
Regarding claim 7:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt comprises polymeric material.
Harkins teaches a welt comprises polymeric material (col. 2 lines 52-57).
Harkins further teaches the polymeric material is “capable of being coextruded or otherwise coated with the adhesive, and...is strong” further wherein the polymeric material “is not adversely affected by the activating conditions of the...adhesive” (col. 2 lines 58-59).
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 Perrault such that the welt comprises polymeric material in order to permit coextrusion with an adhesive therewith and/or to provide strength, as taught by Harkins (col. 2 lines 58-89).
Regarding claim 8:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate.
Harkins teaches a welt comprises ethylene-vinyl-acetate (col. 2 line 56).
Harkins further teaches the ethylene-vinyl-acetate is “capable of being coextruded or otherwise coated with the adhesive, and...is strong” further wherein the polymeric material “is not adversely affected by the activating conditions of the...adhesive” (col. 2 lines 58-59).
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 Perrault such that the welt comprises ethylene-vinyl-acetate in order to permit coextrusion with an adhesive therewith and/or to provide strength, as taught by Harkins (col. 2 lines 58-89).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213], [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [La Rochelle, US 2013/0205624].
Regarding claim 7:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt comprises a polymeric material.
La Rochelle teaches a “welt 52 may be a strip of...polyurethane...the welt 52 is connected by...injection molding...to the upper”; para 20.
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 Perrault such that its welt comprises a polymeric material in order to permit joining of the welt by injection molding, as suggested by La Rochelle (para 20).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213], [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [La Rochelle, US 2013/0205624] and [Acheson, US 7,565,754].
Regarding claim 9:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt comprises thermoplastic polyurethane.
La Rochelle teaches a “welt 52 may be a strip of...polyurethane...the welt 52 is connected by...injection molding...to the upper”; para 20.
Acheson teaches an “injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane” that “helps to distribute load evenly to sole 100” (col. 3 lines 58-64).
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 Perrault such that its welt comprises thermoplastic polyurethane in order to permit joining of the welt by injection molding and also to help distribute load evenly, as suggested by La Rochelle and Acheson (para 20; col. 3 lines 58-64, respectively).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213], [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Eckstrom, US 4,651,443, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 07/03/2025].
Regarding claim 10:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt includes a plurality of welt slits.
Eckstrom teaches a shoe welt includes a plurality of welt slits. Eckstrom teaches “As the welt 10 is bent around the shoe toe, the slits 55 separate to permit the bend without the welt 10 tearing” (col. 3 lines 26-28).
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 Perrault such that the welt includes a plurality of welt slits in order to permit bending of the welt without the welt tearing, as taught by Eckstrom (col. 3 lines 26-28)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213], [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Alianiello, US 2,502,774].
Regarding claim 11:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the welt is a storm welt.
Alianiello teaches a shoe welt is a storm welt; Alianiello further teaches “means are employed in the construction of a shoe to prevent any seepage of water..., it is another object of the present invention to provide a new and improved storm welt construction that will entirely obviate any seepage of water between the uppers and soles of the shoe”; col. 1 lines 46-54.
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 Perrault such that the welt is a storm welt in order to prevent the ingress of water between the upper and the sole, as taught by Alianiello (col. 1 lines 46-54).
Claim(s) 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Perrault, US 2018/0271213] in view of [Wawrousek, US 2014/0182170], [Wilson, US 2010/0122472], and [Weber, US 10,206,449].
Regarding claim 17:
Perrault discloses (Figs. 3-7):
a sole 320 (i.e. “three dimensional mesh 320”; para 101);
a welt 314 (i.e. “rim 314...provide stability...and[] facilitate attachment...to...upper”; para 101);
the welt 314 comprising at least one piece (Figs. 3, 4, 5A, 7), the welt being adjacent the sole (Figs. 3, 4, 7) and being secured the sole (Figs. 3, 4, 7);
the sole 320 having a sole heel end (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a sole toe end (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole extending along a shoe axis from the sole heel end to the sole toe end (Fig. 5A), the sole having a sole heel region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole midfoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole forefoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole ball region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), a sole metatarsal region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), and a sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole heel region extending longitudinally from the sole heel end to the sole midfoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole midfoot region extending longitudinally from the sole heel region to the sole forefoot region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole forefoot region extending longitudinally from the sole midfoot region to the sole ball region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole ball region extending longitudinally from the sole forefoot region to the sole metatarsal region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole metatarsal region extending longitudinally from the sole ball region to the sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole toe region extending longitudinally from the sole metatarsal region to the sole toe end (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole having a lateral side extending from the sole heel region to the sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial side extending from the sole heel region to the sole toe region (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole extending transversely from the lateral side to the medial side (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole heel region having a lateral heel portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial heel portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole midfoot region having a lateral midfoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial midfoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole forefoot region having a lateral forefoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial forefoot portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole ball region having a lateral ball portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial ball portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole metatarsal region having a lateral metatarsal portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial metatarsal portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole toe region having a lateral toe portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed) and a medial toe portion (Fig. 5A and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3A of the present disclosure as filed), the sole having a heel-widest portion (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed), the heel-widest portion being the portion of the sole having the greatest width in the sole heel region from the medial side to the lateral side (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed), the sole having a ball-widest portion (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed), the ball-widest portion being the portion of the sole having the greatest width in the sole ball region from the medial side of the sole to the lateral side of the sole (Figs. 5A, 6 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3B of the present disclosure as filed);
the sole 320 being a 3-D printed (“Three dimensional mesh...formed using an additive manufacturing process, such as but not limited to, a continuous liquid interface production process, selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, selective heat sintering, stereo lithography, fused deposition modeling, or 3D-printing in general”; para 171) sole comprising a plurality of interconnected cells 322 (i.e. “interconnected...cells 322”; para 102), each cell of the plurality of interconnected cells being connected to at least one adjacent cell of the plurality of interconnected cells (para 102), the sole 320 having a sole top surface (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c) and a sole bottom surface (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c), the sole having a periphery (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c) extending between the sole top surface and the sole bottom surface (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and in the same manner the feature is shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c); and
wherein said sole 320 has a torsional stiffness (structs 324 of sole have a “torsional stiffness” (para 78), and the sole comprises “interconnected...cells” (para 78) whereby “forces and torques” are configured to be provided thereon in the manner described directed to the embodiment of para 189 such sole 320 has a torsional stiffness).
Perrault Figs. 3-7 does not expressly disclose:
A shoe comprising:
an upper secured to the sole.
the welt being adjacent both the sole and the upper
wherein said shoe has a torsional stiffness.
However and in further view of Perrault:
Perrault Figs. 1-2 teaches combining a sole 130 with a separate upper 120 secured to (para 86; Figs. 1-2) the sole 130.
Perrault Figs. 3-7 teaches the welt 314 is to “facilitate attachment...to...upper”; para 101.
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 sole and welt of Perrault Figs. 3-7 such that they are combined with a separate upper secured to the sole so as to yield a shoe, the welt being adjacent both the sole and the upper in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear configured to underlie and cover a wearer’s foot sole and also portions of his foot above his foot sole; the sole being configured to underlie a wearer’s foot and the upper being configured to cover upper portions of a wearer’s foot.
In adopting the modification, one would have arrived at the welt comprising at least one piece separate from the upper (insofar as sole and welt are combined with a separate upper as explained in the paragraph preceding this paragraph in the present Office action); wherein said shoe has a torsional stiffness in that “forces and torques” (in the manner described directed to the embodiment of para 189) are configured to be provided onto the sole thereof wherein the struts 324 of said sole have “torsional stiffness” (para 78).
Perrault does not expressly disclose the welt comprising at least one piece separate from the sole and separate from the upper, the welt being adjacent both the sole and the upper and being secured to at least one of the sole and the upper.
Perrault does teach a pair of pieces (i.e. “midsole” and “outsole”) configured to underlie a wearer’s foot as being separate from each other: “midsole 130 and outsole 140 may be discrete components that are formed separately and attached” (para 100); “midsole 300 and outsole 316 may be manufactured separately attached, e.g., with an adhesive” (para 123).
Perrault further teaches
However, Perrault does not expressly disclose the piece of welt 314 as being separate from sole 320 as claimed.
However, Wawrousek teaches a welt 745 (i.e. “plate[] 745 can be integrally formed with (or affixed to) the midsole 500 to provide additional structure and support to the upper surface 555...plate 745 comprising a band of material extending around an outer perimeter of an upper surface 555 of a midsole 500 is shown in FIG. 50. Plate 745 may provide...a solid surface onto which an upper of a shoe can be adhered or otherwise affixed to” (para 245).
In Wawrousek, the welt 745 is separate (i.e. “affixed to” (para 245) as opposed to being “integrally formed” with) from a sole 500 and separate from (as evidenced by an “upper” being capable of being “adhered or otherwise affixed to” (para 245)) an upper.
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 Perrault such that its welt piece is separate from the sole, as in Wawrousek, in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose three components (i.e. welt, sole, and upper) are capable of being manufactured separately and subsequently attached together for the purpose(s) of:
i) permitting shoe assembly in a process comprising a first step of attaching the welt and upper followed by a subsequent step of attaching the combined welt and upper to the sole and/or
ii) permitting a manufacturer to leverage plural machines, processes, and/or manufacturing sites whereby a first machine, process, and/or manufacturing site is desirable for producing the welt and a second machine, process, and/or manufacturing site is preferable for producing the sole.
Perrault Figs. 3-7 does not meet the limitation comprising a heel clip; the heel clip comprising at least one piece separate from the sole, separate from the upper, and separate from the welt, the heel clip being secured to at least one of the sole and the upper in at least the sole heel region.
However and in further view of Perrault:
Perrault Fig. 21 teaches a heel clip 2130 comprising a piece 2130 separate from a sole 2120 and separate from a welt 2150, the heel clip 2130 secured to the sole (via at least 2140) in a sole heel region.
Perrault further teaches the heel clip “encompasses a heel of a wearer” (para 188) and is configured “to provide increased stability” (para 189).
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 Perrault such that it is provided with a heel clip, the heel clip comprising at least one piece separate from the sole, separate from the upper, and separate from the welt, the heel clip being secured to at least one of the sole and the upper in at least the sole heel region in order to provide increased stability, as taught by Perrault (para 189).
Perrault does not expressly disclose the torsional stiffness of said shoe being at least 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of a second comparison shoe, the second comparison shoe being identical to said shoe except the second comparison shoe is devoid of a welt and devoid of a heel clip, the torsional stiffness being a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (10°) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary.
In further view of Perrault:
Perrault teaches “torsional stiffness” of struts that define the sole is appropriate for “customizing (tailoring)...to an individual’s, or group of individual’s needs” (para 78) further wherein “torques” are configured to be “transferred to” a sole (para 189).
Moreover and in further view of Perrault: the welt 314 is to “provide stability for the perimeter” (para 101) and, as embodied in para 189 and Fig. 21, “increased stability” of Perrault Fig. 21 is achieved via the “transfer of forces and torques” to a sole 2120 via a 2-D interface between sole 2120 and the peripheral structure 2140 overlying said sole: “interface...arranged in two dimensions” and overlying “cells...at edge 2124” and also cells “adjacent” thereto but “not at...edge...2124”; para 189; Fig. 21.
And the heel clip of the modified Perrault is “to provide increased stability” (para 189), and is configured to transfer torque to the sole (para 189).
Accordingly, Perrault para 101 teaches welt 314 is for perimeter stability; Perrault para 189 teaches a heel clip is for torque transference to the sole; Perrault para 189 teaches an element overlying the sole for stability is capable of torque transference.
However, Perrault does not expressly disclose the welt and heel clip are configured to contribute to the torsional stiffness of the shoe as claimed, nor does Perrault describe in specificity any particular test method whereby torsional stiffness, in aggregate, is measured in comparison to another shoe absent the welt and heel clip.
Nevertheless, in Perrault, the welt 314 and the heel clip are for stability, and Perrault does teach “Stability provided by an article of footwear may protect a wearer's foot from injury, such as spraining his or her ankle” (para 74).
Wilson teaches a shoe (“article of footwear”; Abstract) wherein “torsional resistance” is provided “through a range of rotation of the foot” wherein “torsional resistance” is provided “during...forefoot eversion...in the range of 0 degrees to about 15 degrees relative to the heel, and in the range of 0 degrees to about 35 degrees relative to the heel during forefoot inversion” (para 57).
Wilson further teaches that “During physical activities, twisting forces acting on the foot may result in the forefoot of the wearer rotating relative to the rearfoot. As shown in FIG. 1 a, the foot may articulate such that eversion of the foot occurs, resulting in the forefoot rotating outwardly relative to the rearfoot. As shown in FIG. 1 b, the foot may also articulate such that inversion of the forefoot occurs, resulting in the forefoot rotating inwardly relative to the rearfoot. ¶ As shown in FIGS. 1 a and 1 b, it may be desirable for an article of footwear to provide torsional resistance through a range of rotation of the foot” (paras 56-57).
Wilson further teaches “There are numerous muscles, bones, and joints that contribute to the torsional movement of the foot, and various athletic maneuvers can create forces acting upon the these muscles, bones, and joints. Depending on the activity, some resistance to these forces may be desirable to prevent injury while not sacrificing the necessary freedom of movement to adequately perform the activity. For example, in sports like tennis and basketball, in which a participant may a make sudden change of direction, the foot may be subjected to forces which promote torsional movements. It may be desirable to resist these movements in one direction to prevent injury” (para 2).
Wilson further teaches the measurement of torsional stiffness (i.e. the “resistance” (para 119) to torsion as “a function of the rotational angle”) at ten degree rotation (para 119; Fig. 38).
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 Perrault such that its welt is configured to provide torsional stability whereby the torsional stiffness of said shoe exceeds the torsional stiffness of a second comparison shoe, the second comparison shoe being identical to said shoe except the first comparison shoe is devoid of a welt, the torsional stiffness being a torque sufficient to rotate the heel-widest portion ten degrees (10°) from an un-torqued condition as the ball-widest portion is held stationary, in order to prevent injury to a wearer when the foot undergoes torsional movements upon directional change while using the shoe, as suggested by Wilson (para 2), wherein, it is noted, that injury prevention afforded by stability is a motivation found within Perrault (para 74) and that the welt of Perrault is for “stability” (para 101).
Regarding the specific limitation of the torsional stiffness of said shoe being at least 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of the second comparison shoe.
In the modified Perrault, the welt and heel clip are configured for providing torsional stiffness and the torsional stability afforded thereby (see above). Perrault further teaches a sole itself is capable of providing “support and stability” at a “perimeter zone” thereof (para 154). Attention is further drawn to Perrault para 78 which teaches that the sole itself comprises struts of a “torsional stiffness” (para 78) such that Perrault at least suggests that torsional stiffness and/or stability is capable of being provided by the sole itself. Thus the modified Perrault – by virtue of having the welt and heel clip configured for providing stiffness and also the sole which has elements of “torsional stiffness”—at least suggests that the shoe has a torsional stiffness due to both the combined welt and heel clip and also other component(s) of the shoe including at least the sole having such elements of “torsional stiffness”.
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt and heel clip is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the combined welt and heel clip relative to a comparison shoe without the combined welt and heel clip is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt, heel clip, and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 100% greater than the torsional stiffness of the second comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt and heel clip are configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 100% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt and heel clip characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt and heel clip as claimed.
Regarding claim 18:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 17, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 150% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
However and in further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt and heel clip is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the combined welt and heel clip relative to a comparison shoe without the combined welt and heel clip is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt, heel clip, and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 150% greater than the torsional stiffness of the second comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt and heel clip are configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 150% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt and heel clip characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt and heel clip as claimed.
Regarding claim 19:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 17, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 200% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
However and in further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt and heel clip is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the combined welt and heel clip relative to a comparison shoe without the combined welt and heel clip is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt, heel clip, and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 200% greater than the torsional stiffness of the second comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt and heel clip are configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 200% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt and heel clip characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt and heel clip as claimed.
Regarding claim 20:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 17, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 250% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
However and in further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt and heel clip is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the combined welt and heel clip relative to a comparison shoe without the combined welt and heel clip is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt, heel clip, and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 250% greater than the torsional stiffness of the second comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt and heel clip are configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 250% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt and heel clip characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt and heel clip as claimed.
Regarding claim 21:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 17, as set forth above.
Perrault does not expressly disclose wherein the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 300% greater than the torsional stiffness of said comparison shoe.
However and in further view of Weber:
Weber teaches a shoe (“sandal”) comprising an “insert 160...configured to provide sole assembly with a...torsional bending stiffness that is greater than that of an otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert...insert 160 may be formed of a material that has a flexural modulus, as measured via a flexural test such as ASTM D790, that is at least 1000 Megapascals (MPa), at least 2000 MPa, at least 3000 MPa, at least 4000 MPa, at least 5000 MPa, at most 5500 MPa, at most 4500 MPa, at most 3500 MPa, at most 2500 MPa, and/or at most 1500 MPa. Additionally or alternatively, foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, outsole 140, and/or conformation bias element 150 may be formed of a material that has such a flexural modulus. ¶ ... insert 160...configured to have a...stiffness and/or...modulus that is sufficiently large that the...insert may overcome a stiffness and/or a rigidity of foot bed 120, midsole layer 130, and/or outsole 140 to bias sole assembly...Additionally or alternatively,...insert 160...have a bending stiffness and/or a flexural modulus...sufficiently small that the sole assembly 100 is readily transitioned to” a deformed “conformation responsive to the user applying weight to the sole assembly 100 and without causing fatigue” (col. 6 lines 36-61).
Although Weber does not provide a specific value for torsional bending stiffness of the shoe with and without the insert, the range of flexural moduli provided for the insert relative to those other components that make up the assembly 100 teach that the insert 160 that is configured to increase the torsional bending stiffness of the overall shoe is capable of being provided within the range of modului (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) and one or more of those other component(s) of assembly 100 is/are also capable of being provided within the same range (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) such that Weber teaches combining:
a substantially stiffer insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 5500 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially less stiff component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 1000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
a substantially less stiff insert 160 (i.e. an insert having a modulus of 1000 MPa and within the range described in Weber) with substantially stiffer component(s) (i.e. one or more other component(s) of assembly 100 as having a modulus of 5000 MPa and also within the range described in Weber)
an insert and component(s) with stiffness values between the two extremes identified above
so as to yield a torsional stiffness of a shoe (the “sandal” with the insert) as being at least greater than the torsional stiffness of a first comparison shoe (the “otherwise identical sandal that lacks the...insert”; col. 6 lines 39-40).
Because Weber is concerned with desired torsional bending stiffness of a shoe with and without an element 160 configured to add torsional bending stiffness to the shoe and provides a range of moduli (i.e. “at least 1000...MPa” and “at most 5500 MPa”) for the element 160 and also those other elements that constitute assembly 100 of the shoe, the relative torsional stiffness of the claimed shoe with and without its welt and heel clip is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative torsional stiffness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired shoe properties. The claimed relative torsional stiffness is merely an optimum or workable relative stiffness and the relative stiffness of the shoe with the combined welt and heel clip relative to a comparison shoe without the combined welt and heel clip is expected to affect the degree to which the welt deforms when a weight is applied thereto and the ability of the welt to bias those other components of the shoe when the welt, heel clip, and shoe are unloaded by a wearer’s weight.
Therefore:
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 Perrault such that the torsional stiffness of said shoe is at least 300% greater than the torsional stiffness of the second comparison shoe in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose welt and heel clip are configured to deform when loaded by a wearer’s weight and bias when unloaded by the wearer’s weight as a result of the torsional stiffness being at least 300% greater as claimed and in conformance with a given user’s weight, intended use, and preferences. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Perrault teaches customization according to “the weight of an individual” (para 82) and “intended athletic activity” (para 130) including activities of varying intensity: (“leisurely stroll”; para 2; “running”; para 2) and would have expected users of different weights, athletic intensities, and preferences to have desired different welt and heel clip characteristics relative to those other portions of the shoe that afford torsional stiffness such that one or more given user(s) would desire the combined degree of deformation and bias afforded by a shoe having a welt and heel clip as claimed.
Regarding claim 22:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 17, as set forth above.
Perrault further discloses wherein the sole comprises a midsole (i.e. that which contains the interconnected cells 134) and an outsole 140 (for the purpose of applying art to parent claim 17, outsole 140 was not identified as being part of the claimed “sole”; however, an equally valid interpretation is to consider both 320 and also 140 as being a sole such that Perrault comprises a sole having both 320 and 140), the midsole being 3-D printed (para 81) and comprising a plurality of interconnected cells (para 88), the outsole 140 being connected to the midsole (para 100).
Regarding claim 23:
Perrault in view of Wawrousek, Wilson, and Weber teach The shoe of claim 22, as set forth above.
Perrault further discloses wherein the outsole 140 comprises rubber (“rubber”; para 96).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
