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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 filed on 5/9/2025 are currently pending in the application and are presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/9/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figure 5 uses shading which reduces the legibility of the drawings and does not aid in the comprehension of the drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84(m) which states, “(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility.” In figure 5, the shading does not aid in understanding the invention, but rather makes it very difficult to see the lines that cross over the shaded portions.
Figure 5 also has lines that are not heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 CFR 1.84(l) which states, “The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.”. The dotted lines used to depict various tangent lines, planes, and angles in figure 5 are very thin and light and therefore are difficult to see and aren’t heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied, in particular “the present disclosure” in lines 1 and 7-8. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim has the status identifier “new”, but the claims filed 5/9/2025 is the first set of claims filed in the application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-5, 7-8, 11-16, 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites multiple phrases separated by “and/or”. It is unclear which portions of the claim are supposed to be considered as alternatives. For the purposes of examination the following will be interpreted as the alternative options, meaning only one of the three limitations is required in order for prior art to read on the claim:
the protrusion structures protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body
a left side end and/or a right side end of the protrusion structure extends to an edge of the heel counter body
a thickness H1 of the protrusion structure close to the edge and a thickness H2 of the protrusion structure close to a centerline of the heel counter body satisfy a following relational expression: H2>H1.
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the protrusion structures protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body”. It is unclear what it means for the protrusion structures to protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body. Are there protrusions on both the inner side and the outer side?
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the protrusion structure” in lines 4, 6, and 7. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the protrusion structures” in reference to all of the previously recited “protrusion structures”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “protrusion structures” (and if so, which one?).
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites “close to the edge” in line 6; however, since the only edge that has been previously introduced is not necessarily required by the claim (it is found in a series of alternatives), there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the edge” in the claim. It is unclear if this “edge” is intended to be referring to the same edge that was recited in line 4 or not.
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitations “close to the edge” and “close to a centerline”. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close in proximity the claimed structures must be in order to be considered “close” as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the protrusion structure” in line 2. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the protrusion structures” in reference to all of the previously recited “protrusion structures”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “protrusion structures” (and if so, which one?).
Further regarding claim 3, the claim recites “at least one first fold edge and at least one second fold edge obliquely connected to the first fold edge” followed by “the first fold edge and the second fold edge form an interior angle of α, and α is in a range of 0° to 90°”. “Oblique” is defined as “neither perpendicular nor parallel” or “having no right angle” by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Therefore, the two limitations contradict each other because the range includes both 0 and 90 degrees, and it is unclear whether the first and second fold edges should be “oblique” as conventionally defined or at an angle in a range of 0° to 90°. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as requiring an angle in a range of 0° to 90°.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the guide section is oblique from bottom to top and backward”. This limitation is unclear. Firstly, what is the guide section oblique (slanted) in reference to? Secondly, it is unclear what “from bottom to top and backward” means. Is bottom to top different from top to bottom (used later in the claim in regards to the support section)? If so, how is it different?
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the support section is arc-shaped from top to bottom”. This limitation is unclear, as it is unclear what it means for something to be “arc-shaped from top to bottom”. Is top to bottom different from bottom to top (used previously in the claim in regards to the guide section)? If so, how is it different? Further it is unclear whether the “from top to bottom” is supposed to be defining an orientation of the “arc-shape” or not.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites multiple phrases separated by “and/or”. It is unclear which portions of the claim are supposed to be considered as alternatives. For the purposes of examination the following will be interpreted as the alternative options, meaning only one of the three limitations is required in order for prior art to read on the claim:
a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is in a range of 40° to 85°
a thickness D1 of the support section close to the guide section and a thickness D2 of the support section close to the movable portion satisfy a following relational expression: D2>D1
a tangent line of an inner side of the support section and a vertical plane where the support section is located form an angle of δ, and δ is in a range of 10° to 30°
Further regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitations “close to the guide section” and “close to the movable portion”. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close in proximity the claimed structures must be in order to be considered “close” as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite at two side ends of the movable portion”. The phrase “opposite at two side ends” makes the limitation unclear. The connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite to what? Also, are the connection portion and guide portion both located at two side ends of the movable portion or is one of them supposed to be located one side end and the other located at the other side end?
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the buffer cavity” in lines 2, 3, and 5. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the at least one buffer cavity” in reference to all of the previously recited “at least one buffer cavity”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “at least one buffer cavity” (and if so, which one?). Further, this discrepancy makes the limitation “the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures” unclear, as it is not clear whether all of the “at least one buffer cavity” must be located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures or if only one needs to be located in the claimed location. Also, if there are more than one buffer cavity, do they all need to be located between the same two adjacent protrusion structures?
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the protrusion structure” in line 2. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the protrusion structures” in reference to all of the previously recited “protrusion structures”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “protrusion structures” (and if so, which one?).
Further regarding claim 11, the claim recites “at least one first fold edge and at least one second fold edge obliquely connected to the first fold edge” followed by “the first fold edge and the second fold edge form an interior angle of α, and α is in a range of 0° to 90°”. “Oblique” is defined as “neither perpendicular nor parallel” or “having no right angle” by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Therefore, the two limitations contradict each other because the range includes both 0 and 90 degrees, and it is unclear whether the first and second fold edges should be “oblique” as conventionally defined or at an angle in a range of 0° to 90°. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as requiring an angle in a range of 0° to 90°.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the buffer cavity” in lines 2, 3, and 5. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the at least one buffer cavity” in reference to all of the previously recited “at least one buffer cavity”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “at least one buffer cavity” (and if so, which one?). Further, this discrepancy makes the limitation “the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures” unclear, as it is not clear whether all of the “at least one buffer cavity” must be located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures or if only one needs to be located in the claimed location. Also, if there are more than one buffer cavity, do they all need to be located between the same two adjacent protrusion structures?
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites multiple phrases separated by “and/or”. It is unclear which portions of the claim are supposed to be considered as alternatives. For the purposes of examination the following will be interpreted as the alternative options, meaning only one of the three limitations is required in order for prior art to read on the claim:
the protrusion structures protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body
a left side end and/or a right side end of the protrusion structure extends to an edge of the heel counter body
a thickness H1 of the protrusion structure close to the edge and a thickness H2 of the protrusion structure close to a centerline of the heel counter body satisfy a following relational expression: H2>H1.
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the protrusion structures protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body”. It is unclear what it means for the protrusion structures to protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body. Are there protrusions on both the inner side and the outer side?
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the protrusion structure” in lines 3, 5, and 6. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the protrusion structures” in reference to all of the previously recited “protrusion structures”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “protrusion structures” (and if so, which one?).
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites “close to the edge” in line 5; however, since the only edge that has been previously introduced is not necessarily required by the claim (it is found in a series of alternatives), there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the edge” in the claim. It is unclear if this “edge” is intended to be referring to the same edge that was recited in line 3 or not.
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitations “close to the edge” and “close to a centerline”. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close in proximity the claimed structures must be in order to be considered “close” as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the protrusion structure” in line 1. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the protrusion structures” in reference to all of the previously recited “protrusion structures”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “protrusion structures” (and if so, which one?).
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites “at least one first fold edge and at least one second fold edge obliquely connected to the first fold edge” followed by “the first fold edge and the second fold edge form an interior angle of α, and α is in a range of 0° to 90°”. “Oblique” is defined as “neither perpendicular nor parallel” or “having no right angle” by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Therefore, the two limitations contradict each other because the range includes both 0 and 90 degrees, and it is unclear whether the first and second fold edges should be “oblique” as conventionally defined or at an angle in a range of 0° to 90°.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “the guide section is oblique from bottom to top and backward”. This limitation is unclear. Firstly, what is the guide section oblique (slanted) in reference to? Secondly, it is unclear what “from bottom to top and backward” means. Is bottom to top different from top to bottom (used later in the claim in regards to the support section)? If so, how is it different?
Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “the support section is arc-shaped from top to bottom”. This limitation is unclear, as it is unclear what it means for something to be “arc-shaped from top to bottom”. Is top to bottom different from bottom to top (used previously in the claim in regards to the guide section)? If so, how is it different? Further it is unclear whether the “from top to bottom” is supposed to be defining an orientation of the “arc-shape” or not.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites multiple phrases separated by “and/or”. It is unclear which portions of the claim are supposed to be considered as alternatives. For the purposes of examination the following will be interpreted as the alternative options, meaning only one of the three limitations is required in order for prior art to read on the claim:
a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is in a range of 40° to 85°
a thickness D1 of the support section close to the guide section and a thickness D2 of the support section close to the movable portion satisfy a following relational expression: D2>D1
a tangent line of an inner side of the support section and a vertical plane where the support section is located form an angle of δ, and δ is in a range of 10° to 30°
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitations “close to the guide section” and “close to the movable portion”. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close in proximity the claimed structures must be in order to be considered “close” as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “the connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite at two side ends of the movable portion”. The phrase “opposite at two side ends” makes the limitation unclear. The connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite to what? Also, are the connection portion and guide portion both located at two side ends of the movable portion or is one of them supposed to be located one side end and the other located at the other side end?
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the buffer cavity” in lines 2, 3, and 5. It is unclear whether this limitation should be “the at least one buffer cavity” in reference to all of the previously recited “at least one buffer cavity”, or if the limitation is referring to only one of the previously recited “at least one buffer cavity” (and if so, which one?). Further, this discrepancy makes the limitation “the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures” unclear, as it is not clear whether all of the “at least one buffer cavity” must be located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures or if only one needs to be located in the claimed location. Also, if there are more than one buffer cavity, do they all need to be located between the same two adjacent protrusion structures?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Libit (US 4489509).
Regarding claim 1, Libit discloses: A heel counter structure with a rebound function, comprising a heel counter body (heel portion 12), wherein the heel counter body is provided with a guide portion and a movable portion connected to the guide portion (see annotated figure 2 below showing the guide portion and movable portion); the guide portion is provided with a guide surface (see annotated figure 2 below showing the guide surface which is a surface of the guide portion); the movable portion is provided with protrusion structures (14; see also annotated figure 2 below showing the protrusion structures); and the protrusion structures are connected to the guide surface (see figure 2; the protrusion structures are guide surface are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected), and are able to perform a compression contraction movement and a rebound recovery movement (“latching means are provided which releasably compress the rear end of the accordion-type pleats at the back of the shoe to permit seating of the shoe within the overshoe. Upon release of the latching means, the molded plastic assumes its relaxed condition where it is in snugly fitting relationship with the shoe” column 1, line 68-column 2, line 6; see figure 4 (compressed) in comparison to figure 2 (relaxed)).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion structures protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, showing the protrusion structures; this structure is similar to the structure shown in figure 3 of the instant application, therefore it is understood to protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body insofar as can be understood; due to the use of “and/or”, which is interpreted as “or”, meaning that the three limitations are interpreted as alternatives and only one of the three limitations must be met in order to read on the claim (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above), the other limitations in this claim are not required because the first limitation has been met by the prior art); and/or a left side end and/or a right side end of the protrusion structure extends to an edge of the heel counter body; and/or a thickness H1 of the protrusion structure close to the edge and a thickness H2 of the protrusion structure close to a centerline of the heel counter body satisfy a following relational expression: H2>H1.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion structure comprises at least one first fold edge and at least one second fold edge obliquely connected to the first fold edge; and the first fold edge and the second fold edge form an interior angle of α, and α is in a range of 0° to 90° (see annotated figure 2 provided below showing the first fold edge and second fold edge; the angle in the figure is already less than 90°, and the angle between the fold edges only gets smaller (closer to 0) as the protrusion structures are compressed, as shown in figure 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
216
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the guide surface comprises a guide section and a support section connected to the guide section (see annotated figure 2 below showing the guide section and support section which are both sections of the guide surface); the support section is connected to the movable portion (see figure 2 annotated below showing the support section is connected to the movable portion; the support section and movable portion both are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected); the guide section is oblique from bottom to top and backward (the guide section as shown below in annotated figure 2 is oblique (slanted) “from bottom to top and backward” insofar as can be understood); and the support section is arc-shaped from top to bottom (the support section is arc-shaped “from top to bottom” insofar as can be understood because it extends in an arc shape around the heel of the user, see figures 1 and 3; “the accordion-type pleats 14 extend from one end of the instep area 13 around the back of the shoe and the heel portion 12, to the opposite side of the flexible instep area 13” column 3, lines 6-9).
PNG
media_image3.png
262
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein a center point A of the heel counter body, a first edge point B on a left side of the heel counter body, and a second edge point C on a right side of the heel counter body form an angle ∠CAB; and the angle ∠CAB is defined as µ, 20°≤µ≤90° (see annotated figure 3 below; points A, B, and C can be defined on the heel counter body of Libit as claimed, and Examiner notes that a square has been used in the annotation to form the angle CAB for simplicity and ease in showing that the angle CAB is equal to 90°).
PNG
media_image4.png
181
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the heel counter body further comprises a connection portion (see annotated figure 2 below); the connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite at two side ends of the movable portion (see annotated figure 2 below; the connection portion and the guide portion are located on opposite sides (the guide portion being above the movable portion and the connection portion being below the movable portion) of the movable portion, which appears to be the same configuration shown in figure 7 of the instant application); and the connection portion is connected to the movable portion (see figure 2 annotated below showing the connection portion is connected to the movable portion; the connection portion and movable portion both are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected).
PNG
media_image5.png
251
511
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the heel counter body further comprises at least one buffer cavity (see annotated figure 2 below showing the buffer cavities (spaces) between the protrusion structures); the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures (see annotated figure 2 below); and a buffer direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a compression contraction direction of the protrusion structures, and a recovery direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a rebound recovery direction of the protrusion structures (see figure 2 (relaxed) compared to figure 4 (compressed); the buffer cavities get smaller as the protrusion structures compress, and get larger as the protrusion structures rebound to the relaxed position, therefore they have the same buffer direction/compression contraction direction and recovery direction as the protrusion structures).
PNG
media_image6.png
267
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Libit discloses: A shoe, comprising an upper portion (see annotated figure 2 below), a sole portion (11), and a heel counter body, wherein the heel counter body is the heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1 (see 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above); the upper portion is connected to an upper surface of the sole portion (see annotated figure 2 below showing the upper portion is connected to an upper surface of the sole portion; the upper portion and sole portion both are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected); the heel counter body comprises a side end connected to a side end of the upper portion and a bottom end connected to the upper surface of the sole portion (see annotated figure 2 below showing the side ends of the heel counter body and the upper portion, as well as the bottom of the heel counter being connected to the upper surface of the sole portion; the heel counter and sole portion both are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected); and the heel counter body is located at a back end of the upper portion (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
382
511
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 2, wherein the protrusion structure comprises at least one first fold edge and at least one second fold edge obliquely connected to the first fold edge; and the first fold edge and the second fold edge form an interior angle of a, and a is in a range of 0° to 90° (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 3 above showing the first fold edge and second fold edge; the angle in the figure is already less than 90°, and the angle between the fold edges only gets smaller (closer to 0) as the protrusion structures are compressed, as shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 7, wherein the heel counter body further comprises at least one buffer cavity (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 above showing the buffer cavities (spaces) between the protrusion structures); the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 above); and a buffer direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a compression contraction direction of the protrusion structures, and a recovery direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a rebound recovery direction of the protrusion structures (see figure 2 (relaxed) compared to figure 4 (compressed); the buffer cavities get smaller as the protrusion structures compress, and get larger as the protrusion structures rebound to the relaxed position, therefore they have the same buffer direction/compression contraction direction and recovery direction as the protrusion structures).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the protrusion structures protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, showing the protrusion structures; this structure is similar to the structure shown in figure 3 of the instant application, therefore it is understood to protrude from an inner side of the heel counter body to an outer side of the heel counter body insofar as can be understood; due to the use of “and/or”, which is interpreted as “or”, meaning that the three limitations are interpreted as alternatives and only one of the three limitations must be met in order to read on the claim (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above), the other limitations in this claim are not required because the first limitation has been met by the prior art); and/or a left side end and/or a right side end of the protrusion structure extends to an edge of the heel counter body; and/or a thickness H1 of the protrusion structure close to the edge and a thickness H2 of the protrusion structure close to a centerline of the heel counter body satisfy a following relational expression: H2>H1.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the protrusion structure comprises at least one first fold edge and at least one second fold edge obliquely connected to the first fold edge; and the first fold edge and the second fold edge form an interior angle of a, and a is in a range of 0° to 90° (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 3 above showing the first fold edge and second fold edge; the angle in the figure is already less than 90°, and the angle between the fold edges only gets smaller (closer to 0) as the protrusion structures are compressed, as shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the guide surface comprises a guide section and a support section connected to the guide section (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 4 above showing the guide section and support section which are both sections of the guide surface); the support section is connected to the movable portion (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 4 above showing the support section is connected to the movable portion; the support section and movable portion both are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected); the guide section is oblique from bottom to top and backward (the guide section as shown below in annotated figure 2 is oblique (slanted) “from bottom to top and backward” insofar as can be understood); and the support section is arc-shaped from top to bottom (the support section is arc-shaped “from top to bottom” insofar as can be understood because it extends in an arc shape around the heel of the user, see figures 1 and 3; “the accordion-type pleats 14 extend from one end of the instep area 13 around the back of the shoe and the heel portion 12, to the opposite side of the flexible instep area 13” column 3, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 17, Libit discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein a center point A of the heel counter body, a first edge point B on a left side of the heel counter body, and a second edge point C on a right side of the heel counter body form an angle ∠CAB; and the angle ∠CAB is defined as µ, 20°≤µ≤90° (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; points A, B, and C can be defined on the heel counter body of Libit as claimed, and Examiner notes that a square has been used in the annotation to form the angle CAB for simplicity and ease in showing that the angle CAB is equal to 90°).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the heel counter body further comprises a connection portion (see annotated figure 2 below); the connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite at two side ends of the movable portion (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above; the connection portion and the guide portion are located on opposite sides (the guide portion being above the movable portion and the connection portion being below the movable portion) of the movable portion, which appears to be the same configuration shown in figure 7 of the instant application); and the connection portion is connected to the movable portion (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above showing the connection portion is connected to the movable portion; the connection portion and movable portion both are part of the overshoe and therefore are connected).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood by Examiner, Libit discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the heel counter body further comprises at least one buffer cavity (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 above showing the buffer cavities (spaces) between the protrusion structures); the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 above); and a buffer direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a compression contraction direction of the protrusion structures, and a recovery direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a rebound recovery direction of the protrusion structures (see figure 2 (relaxed) compared to figure 4 (compressed); the buffer cavities get smaller as the protrusion structures compress, and get larger as the protrusion structures rebound to the relaxed position, therefore they have the same buffer direction/compression contraction direction and recovery direction as the protrusion structures).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-10, 12, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheney (US 2020/0305552).
Regarding claim 1, Cheney discloses: A heel counter structure with a rebound function, comprising a heel counter body (110), wherein the heel counter body is provided with a guide portion (150) and a movable portion connected to the guide portion (see annotated figures 8C and 8D below); the guide portion is provided with a guide surface (see annotated figure 8D below); the movable portion is provided with protrusion structures (111; “adjacent or interconnected, overlapping, intersecting and/or woven ribs 111 of the lattice structure 110” paragraph 49; see figures 8C and 8D below showing the ribs are projecting/protruding from at least some other portions of the lattice structure, making them protrusion structures insofar as defined by the claim); and the protrusion structures are connected to the guide surface (see annotated figures 8C and 8D below showing the protrusion structures are connected to the guide surface; “yoke 150 can be coupled to and extend in an upward direction from a lattice structure 110” paragraph 59), and are able to perform a compression contraction movement and a rebound recovery movement (compressible lattice structure 110; “a material that is capable of being reversibly compressed such that it recoils back up after the foot/heel of the user is no longer applying the downward compressive force” paragraph 27; see also paragraphs 35-36 describing the compression and rebound of the lattice structure).
PNG
media_image8.png
345
510
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
381
456
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8C (left) and 8D (right) of Cheney
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the guide surface comprises a guide section and a support section connected to the guide section (see annotated figure 8D below showing the guide section and support section which are both sections of the guide surface); the support section is connected to the movable portion (see figures 8C and 8D annotated below showing the support section is connected to the movable portion; the support section and movable portion both are part of the shoe and therefore are connected); the guide section is oblique from bottom to top and backward (the guide section as shown below in annotated figure 8C is oblique (slanted) “from bottom to top and backward” insofar as can be understood); and the support section is arc-shaped from top to bottom (the support section is arc-shaped “from top to bottom” insofar as can be understood because it extends in an arc shape around the heel of the user, see figure 8D annotated below).
PNG
media_image10.png
366
594
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
384
507
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the heel counter body further comprises a connection portion (see annotated figure 8C below); the connection portion and the guide portion are located opposite at two side ends of the movable portion (see annotated figure 8C below; the connection portion and the guide portion are located on opposite sides (the guide portion being above the movable portion and the connection portion being below the movable portion) of the movable portion, which appears to be the same configuration shown in figure 7 of the instant application); and the connection portion is connected to the movable portion (see figure 8C annotated below showing the connection portion is connected to the movable portion; the connection portion and movable portion both are part of the shoe and therefore are connected).
PNG
media_image12.png
371
594
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1, wherein the heel counter body further comprises at least one buffer cavity (112); the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures (“the compressible lattice structure 110 comprises one or a plurality of interconnected, overlapping, intersecting and/or woven ribs defining one or a plurality of apertures 112” paragraph 26; see apertures between the ribs 111 on figures 8C and 8D); and a buffer direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a compression contraction direction of the protrusion structures, and a recovery direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a rebound recovery direction of the protrusion structures (see paragraphs 35-36 describing the compression and rebound of the lattice structure; the apertures collapse and expand as the entire lattice structure contracts and expands, therefore the apertures and protrusion structures have the same buffer direction/compression contraction direction and recover direction).
Regarding claim 9, Cheney discloses: A shoe, comprising an upper portion, a sole portion, and a heel counter body (see figure 6A below for exemplary purposes showing an upper and sole portion), wherein the heel counter body is the heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 1 (see 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 over Cheney above); the upper portion is connected to an upper surface of the sole portion (see annotated figure 6A below showing the upper portion is connected to an upper surface of the sole portion; the upper portion and sole portion both are part of the shoe and therefore are connected); the heel counter body comprises a side end connected to a side end of the upper portion and a bottom end connected to the upper surface of the sole portion (“a lower flange 160 can be coupled to and extend about all or a portion of the lower edge of the lattice structure 110. A lower flange 160 can extend on sides of rapid-entry shoe and/or underneath a footbed of rapid-entry shoe (e.g., between an outsole and a midsole, between a midsole and an insole)” paragraph 56; see annotated figure 6A below showing the side ends of the heel counter body and the upper portion, as well as the bottom of the heel counter being connected to the upper surface of the sole portion; the heel counter and sole portion both are part of the shoe and therefore are connected); and the heel counter body is located at a back end of the upper portion (“the rapid entry shoe 100 includes a heel portion that has a compressible lattice structure 110” paragraph 26).
PNG
media_image13.png
280
690
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Cheney discloses: The shoe according to claim 9, wherein a surface of the heel counter body is wrapped with an outer covering (“the lattice structure 110 may be coupled to or integrated within (e.g. internalized within) a heel or a heel cap” paragraph 55; Examiner notes that if something is internalized within another structure, it is covered by an outer covering).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney discloses: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 7, wherein the heel counter body further comprises at least one buffer cavity (112); the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures (“the compressible lattice structure 110 comprises one or a plurality of interconnected, overlapping, intersecting and/or woven ribs defining one or a plurality of apertures 112” paragraph 26; see apertures between the ribs 111 on figures 8C and 8D); and a buffer direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a compression contraction direction of the protrusion structures, and a recovery direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a rebound recovery direction of the protrusion structures (see paragraphs 35-36 describing the compression and rebound of the lattice structure; the apertures collapse and expand as the entire lattice structure contracts and expands, therefore the apertures and protrusion structures have the same buffer direction/compression contraction direction and recover direction).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the guide surface comprises a guide section and a support section connected to the guide section (see annotated figure 8D provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 4 above showing the guide section and support section which are both sections of the guide surface); the support section is connected to the movable portion (see figures 8C and 8D provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 4 above showing the support section is connected to the movable portion; the support section and movable portion both are part of the shoe and therefore are connected); the guide section is oblique from bottom to top and backward (the guide section as shown below in annotated figure 8C is oblique (slanted) “from bottom to top and backward” insofar as can be understood); and the support section is arc-shaped from top to bottom (the support section is arc-shaped “from top to bottom” insofar as can be understood because it extends in an arc shape around the heel of the user, see figure 8D provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney discloses: The shoe of claim 9, wherein the heel counter body further comprises at least one buffer cavity (112); the buffer cavity is located between adjacent two of the protrusion structures (“the compressible lattice structure 110 comprises one or a plurality of interconnected, overlapping, intersecting and/or woven ribs defining one or a plurality of apertures 112” paragraph 26; see apertures between the ribs 111 on figures 8C and 8D); and a buffer direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a compression contraction direction of the protrusion structures, and a recovery direction of the buffer cavity is the same as a rebound recovery direction of the protrusion structures (see paragraphs 35-36 describing the compression and rebound of the lattice structure; the apertures collapse and expand as the entire lattice structure contracts and expands, therefore the apertures and protrusion structures have the same buffer direction/compression contraction direction and recover direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheney in view of Weeks (US 2023/0284748).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney appears to disclose: The heel counter structure with the rebound function according to claim 4, wherein a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is in a range of 40° to 85° (see annotation for angle beta on figure 8C of Cheney below; due to the use of “and/or”, which is interpreted as “or”, meaning that the three limitations are interpreted as alternatives and only one of the three limitations must be met in order to read on the claim (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above), the other limitations in this claim are not required because the first limitation has been met by the prior art); and/or a thickness D1 of the support section close to the guide section and a thickness D2 of the support section close to the movable portion satisfy a following relational expression: D2>D1; and/or a tangent line of an inner side of the support section and a vertical plane where the support section is located form an angle of δ, and δ is in a range of 10° to 30°.
PNG
media_image14.png
369
594
media_image14.png
Greyscale
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit disclosure of the angle beta being between 40-85 degrees, Weeks teaches a heel counter body with a guide section wherein a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is in a range of 40° to 85° (The top portion of the convex curvature has the downward incline A1 of 30 degrees” paragraph 41; see annotated figure 6B of Weeks below showing that the downward incline angle is related to the claimed angle beta geometrically such that if the downward inline angle is 30, the angle beta will be 60 because together the downward incline angle A1 and the angle beta add up to 90 degrees; 60 is between 40 and 85).
PNG
media_image15.png
711
561
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Weeks teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with heel counters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the heel counter of Cheney such that a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is specifically 60°, as taught by Weeks, which is in a range of 40° to 85°, because the specific “angle of the downward incline of the upper portion allows the heel of the foot to slide into the shoe 12 with greater ease” (Weeks, paragraph 52), which would make it even easier to put the shoe on, especially for people who have limited flexibility or mobility. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the guide section with the claimed angle because a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner again notes that due to the use of “and/or”, which is interpreted as “or”, meaning that the three limitations are interpreted as alternatives and only one of the three limitations must be met in order to read on the claim (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above), the other limitations in this claim are not required because the first limitation has been met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood by Examiner, Cheney appears to disclose: The shoe of claim 15, wherein a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is in a range of 40° to 85° (see annotation for angle beta on figure 8C of Cheney provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 above; due to the use of “and/or”, which is interpreted as “or”, meaning that the three limitations are interpreted as alternatives and only one of the three limitations must be met in order to read on the claim (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above), the other limitations in this claim are not required because the first limitation has been met by the prior art); and/or a thickness D1 of the support section close to the guide section and a thickness D2 of the support section close to the movable portion satisfy a following relational expression: D2>D1; and/or a tangent line of an inner side of the support section and a vertical plane where the support section is located form an angle of δ, and δ is in a range of 10° to 30°.
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit disclosure of the angle beta being between 40-85 degrees, Weeks teaches a heel counter body with a guide section wherein a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is in a range of 40° to 85° (The top portion of the convex curvature has the downward incline A1 of 30 degrees” paragraph 41; see annotated figure 6B of Weeks provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 above showing that the downward incline angle A1 is related to the claimed angle beta geometrically such that if the downward inline angle is 30, the angle beta will be 60 because together the downward incline angle A1 and the angle beta add up to 90 degrees; 60 is between 40 and 85).
Weeks teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with heel counters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the heel counter of Cheney such that a tangent line of an inner side of the guide section and a horizontal plane where the guide section is located form an angle of β, and β is specifically 60°, as taught by Weeks, which is in a range of 40° to 85°, because the specific “angle of the downward incline of the upper portion allows the heel of the foot to slide into the shoe 12 with greater ease” (Weeks, paragraph 52), which would make it even easier to put the shoe on, especially for people who have limited flexibility or mobility. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the guide section with the claimed angle because a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner again notes that due to the use of “and/or”, which is interpreted as “or”, meaning that the three limitations are interpreted as alternatives and only one of the three limitations must be met in order to read on the claim (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above), the other limitations in this claim are not required because the first limitation has been met by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Farina (US 2024/0122300), Siegismund (US 2023/0058209), Wang (US 2024/0324727), Hopkins (US 2020/0205511), and Kilgore (US 2020/0205516) teach relevant heel counters for footwear.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732