DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B: a shoe comprising a heel clip 182. The heel clip 182 comprises at least one piece separate from the sole 122, separate from the upper 124, and separate from the welt 126. The heel clip 182 is secured to at least one of the sole 122 and the upper 124 in at least the sole heel region 132 wherein the shoe is as shown in Figs. 8-9 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of the Claims
Applicant identifies claims 1-25 as reading on the elected species (see p. 11 of the reply of 11/25/2025).
In addition, attention is drawn to the restriction requirement of 10/01/2025, which states in relevant part “claims...24-25 are generic” (p. 3 line 3).
However, and upon further review of the present disclosure and the claims as presented for examination, it is noted that claims 24-25 are not generic to Species A-D.
Claim 24 requires “the midsole having...a second portion...the second portion being of a molded construction” (final five lines of the claim), which is a feature of nonelected Species D as described in para [0042], which states in relevant part “As shown in Figure 11, for example, the midsole 84 may contain components that are of a 3-D printed construction and other components that are of a molded construction. For example, the midsole 84 may comprise a component that is of a 3-D printed construction in the sole heel region 32 and/or the sole midfoot region 34, while the remainder of the midsole 84 may comprise a molded component”.
Accordingly, claims 24-25 are not generic and are drawn to nonelected species D.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn by the Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1-25 are presented.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn (see above).
The present Office action treats claims 1-23 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 8: “and a sole toe region adjacent” should be --and a seam toe region adjacent--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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
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