DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are presented.
Claim 15 remains withdrawn.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
Claim 16 is presented in independent form and is a new claim.
Dependent claims 17-20 are newly presented.
The present Office action treats claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks of 06/24/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot insofar as claims 1 and 14 are, via the amendment of 06/24/2026, altered in scope such that the specific feature identified as bot being shown in the drawings is no longer recited. However, it is noted that Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new drawings objection.
Regarding Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot insofar as claim 6 is, via the amendment of 06/24/2026, canceled such that the objection thereto as set forth in the previous Office action is rendered moot.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon review of the amended claims and Applicant’s remarks, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 112 b rejection set forth in the previous Office action is overcome.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings – Replacement Sheets
The drawings (replacement sheets) were received on 06/24/2026. These drawings are not acceptable and are not entered because they would introduce new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the specific arrangement of newly drawn elements 23, 24 relative to each other and the other drawn structure. Although the disclosure as filed states “In some embodiments, wings similar to the wings 21, 22 may also be provided in the forefoot area, for example on the outer edges of a first finger 12 (for example, a medial finger) and a second finger 11 (for example, a lateral finger), to provide additional support for the forefoot of a user” (para 117), it does not state any specific arrangement of any newly drawn element(s) 23 or 24 as presented in the replacement sheets. It is noted the specification as filed does not state the specific extent(s) and/or specific spatial arrangement of any “wings ...in the forefoot area” that would support the arrangement of newly drawn elements 23 or 24 in the replacement sheets.
Specification - Amendment
A specification amendment of 06/24/2026 is acknowledged and is entered. The specification amendment has necessitated a new drawings objection; see objections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 23, 24. 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. 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.
It is noted the drawings of 06/24/2026 are not entered (see above) and that the specification amendment of 06/24/2026 recites reference signs 23 and 24.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
forefoot portion comprises at least two wings of claim 14
midfoot portion...comprising: a medial finger...; and a lateral finger..., wherein the medial finger comprises a medial hook...and the lateral finger comprises a lateral hook of claim 16
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Luthi, US 2001/0001907, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Luthi discloses (Fig. 6):
A support plate 10 (“stability element 10”; para 62; it is noted numeral 10 does not appear in Fig. 6; however, plate 10 comprises part 20 and part 30, which do appear in Fig. 6) configured to be arranged in a sole structure of a shoe (para 41), comprising:
a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below);
a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below); and
a midfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) connecting the forefoot portion and the heel portion (as in annotated Fig. 6 – a below),
wherein the forefoot portion comprises a medial finger (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) extending in a heel-to-toe direction, a lateral finger (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) extending in the heel-to-toe direction, and an intermediate finger (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) disposed between the medial finger and the lateral finger and extending in the heel-to-toe direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
905
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7:
Luthi discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Luthi further discloses wherein the medial finger comprises a medial hook (see annotated Fig. 6 – b below) and the lateral finger comprises a lateral hook (see annotated Fig. 6 – b below), wherein the lateral hook is directed to (as in annotated Fig. 6 – b below) a medial side (the side having medial part 30) of the support plate and the medial hook is directed to (as in annotated Fig. 6 – b below) a lateral side (the side having lateral part 20) of the support plate, wherein the medial finger is configured to support a big toe of a user (medial finger is configured such that a wearer can place his big toe above the medial finger such that the medial finger is configured to support a big toe as claimed).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Luthi discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Luthi further discloses wherein each of the medial finger and the lateral finger taper towards a toe-end of the support plate (as in annotated Fig. 6 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11:
Luthi discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Luther further discloses wherein the support plate is configured to distribute a load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot (plate 10 is configured such to underlie heel, midfoot, and forefoot of the wearer such that “the foot is supported over its effective longitudinal length” (para 18) such that the support plate is configured to distribute load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot; it is noted that the support plate is configured such that when a wearer’s foot bottom is placed above the support plate, portions of the wearer’s foot bottom (including wearer foot heel, wearer ball of foot, and wearer first and fifth metatarsals) will be provide over portions of the support plate; it is further noted the support plate will fit wearers of different sizes and foot shapes with specific surfaces of his foot resting upon footwear surfaces differently such that the limitation is met.)
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Truelsen, US 2010/0293811, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Truelsen discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A support plate 4 configured to be arranged in a sole structure of a shoe (Abstract, title), comprising:
a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 1a – a below);
a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 1a – a below); and
a midfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 1a – a below) connecting the forefoot portion and the heel portion (as in annotated Fig. 1a – a below),
wherein the forefoot portion comprises a medial finger 16 extending in a heel-to-toe direction, a lateral finger 15 extending in the heel-to-toe direction, and an intermediate finger 14 disposed between the medial finger and the lateral finger and extending in the heel-to-toe direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
843
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Truelsen discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Truelsen further discloses wherein the intermediate finger is shorter (“small finger 14”; para 44; Figs. 1a, 2a, 3a) than the medial finger and the lateral finger in the heel-to-toe direction.
Regarding claim 11:
Truelsen discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Truelsen further discloses wherein the support plate is configured to distribute a load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot (plate is configured such to underlie heel, midfoot, and forefoot of the wearer such that the support plate is configured to distribute load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot; it is noted that the support plate is configured such that when a wearer’s foot bottom is placed above the support plate, portions of the wearer’s foot bottom (including wearer foot heel, wearer ball of foot, and wearer first and fifth metatarsals) will be provide over portions of the support plate; it is further noted the support plate will fit wearers of different sizes and foot shapes with specific surfaces of his foot resting upon footwear surfaces differently such that the limitation is met.)
Regarding claim 13:
Truelsen discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Truelsen further discloses wherein the heel portion comprises an aperture 8 in the heel portion (Fig. 2a), wherein the aperture is configured to provide cushioning for a heel of a user (via at least the “PU” filling the opening (para 48) wherein said PU is has a “characteristic” of “Cushioning” (para 58).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Lussier, US 6,954,998, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 10/16/2025].
Regarding claim 1:
Lussier discloses (Fig. 2A-2G):
A support plate 102 configured to be arranged in a sole structure of a shoe (Abstract), comprising:
a forefoot portion 106;
a heel portion 108; and
a midfoot portion 104 connecting the forefoot portion and the heel portion,
wherein the forefoot portion comprises a medial finger 110 (i.e. one of “finger-shaped elements 110”; col. 5 line 49, wherein it is noted that 124 is a “medial side 124” of the plate; col. 6 line 64) extending in a heel-to-toe direction (Figs. 2A-2G), a lateral finger 110 (i.e. another of “finger-shaped elements 110”; col. 5 line 49, wherein it is noted that 126 is a “lateral side 126” of the plate; col. 6 line 61) extending in the heel-to-toe direction (Figs. 2A-2G), and an intermediate finger 110 (the one of “finger-shaped elements 110” (col. 5 line 49) that is between the medial finger and the lateral finger) disposed between the medial finger and the lateral finger (Figs. 2A-2G) and extending in the heel-to-toe direction (Figs. 2A-2G).
Regarding claim 2:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the midfoot portion comprises reinforcement ribs 130 (wherein it is noted that midfoot portion 104 comprises two three such ribs 130 and that ribs 130 are reinforcement ribs insofar as they are configured to transfer pressure exerted by cleats and disperse the pressure to a larger area so as to distribute point load as explained in the first paragraph of col. 6 such that the ribs 130 are configured to reinforce the support plate—as opposed to their not being provided—via at least pressure transference and dispersion.)
Regarding claim 4:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the heel portion comprises at least one wing 130 (i.e. the two lugs 130 within the heel portion; Figs. 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G) extending upwards (Figs. 2C, 2D, 2G, wherein it is noted that when the support plate is arranged as in Fig. 2G, wing 130 extends in an up-down direction such that it is “extending upwards” as claimed) to support a heel of a user (configured to underlie a heel and configured to transfer and disperse pressure as explained in the first paragraph of col. 6 such that the wings 130 are to support a heel of a user).
Regarding claim 5:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 4, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the heel portion comprises at least two wings 130 (i.e. the two lugs 130 within the heel portion; Figs. 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G) being arranged opposite each other (Fig. 2A) on lateral 126 and medial 124 sides of the support plate (Figs. 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G).
Regarding claim 7:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the medial finger comprises a medial hook (see annotated Fig. 2A – a below) and the lateral finger comprises a lateral hook (see annotated Fig. 2A – a below), wherein the lateral hook is directed to (as in annotated Fig. 2A – a below) a medial side 124 of the support plate and the medial hook is directed to (as in annotated Fig. 2A – a below) a lateral side 126 of the support plate, wherein the medial finger is configured to support a big toe of a user (107 is a “toe portion”, and the support plate is configured that the medial finger is configured to underlie and support a big toe of at least some user of the support plate; it is noted the support plate will fit wearers of different sizes differently and with his foot arranged differently relative to the support plate such that the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image4.png
1083
962
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein each of the medial finger and the lateral finger taper (as in Fig. 2A) towards a toe-end 107 of the support plate.
Regarding claim 11:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the support plate is configured to distribute a load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot (plate is configured such to underlie heel, midfoot, and forefoot of the wearer such that the support plate is configured to distribute load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot; it is noted that the support plate is configured such that when a wearer’s foot bottom is placed above the support plate, portions of the wearer’s foot bottom (including wearer foot heel, wearer ball of foot, and wearer first and fifth metatarsals) will be provide over portions of the support plate; it is further noted the support plate will fit wearers of different sizes and foot shapes with specific surfaces of his foot resting upon footwear surfaces differently such that the limitation is met.)
Regarding claim 13:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the heel portion comprises an aperture 112 in the heel poriton, wherein the aperture is configured to provide cushioning for a heel of a user (“provides cushioning in the heel region”; col. 6 lines 58-59).
Regarding claim 14:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier further discloses wherein the forefoot portion comprises at least two wings 130 (i.e. the three lugs 130 extending from the medial finger and the three lugs 130 extending from the lateral finger within the forefoot portion; Figs. 2A-2E and 2G) being arranged opposite each other (Fig. 2A) on a lateral side 126 of the support plate and a medial side 124 of the support plate (Figs. 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Martin, US 5,329,704, newly cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Martin discloses:
A support plate 10 configured to be arranged in an article of footwear (col. 2 lines 23-24; claim 1; in addition, support plate 10 is configured to be arranged in another article of footwear, for example and not limited to by placing the support plate within another, undisclosed, article of footwear), comprising: a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below); a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below); and a midfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) connecting the forefoot portion and the heel portion and comprising:
a medial finger (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below, wherein it is noted that the support plate is capable of being arranged in an article of footwear with the medial finger identified hereinbelow on a medial side of the article of footwear) extending in a heel-to-toe direction; and a lateral finger (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) extending in the heel-to-toe direction, wherein the medial finger comprises a medial hook 15 (i.e. the one of 15 “molded or bonded” to the “side margin” (col. 2 lines 16-17) of the medial finger) at (it is noted the term “at” means “In or near the area occupied by; in or near the location of”; at. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved August 19 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/at) an end (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) of the medial finger and directed to (as evidenced by Figs. 1-2) a lateral side (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) of the support plate and the lateral finger comprises a lateral hook 15 (i.e. the one of 15 “molded or bonded” to the “side margin” (col. 2 lines 16-17) of the lateral finger) at (it is noted the term “at” means “In or near the area occupied by; in or near the location of”; at. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved August 19 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/at) an end (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) of the lateral finger (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) and directed to (as evidenced by Figs. 1-2) a medial side (see annotated Fig. 4 – a below) of the support plate.
PNG
media_image5.png
782
1007
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17:
Martin discloses The support plate according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Martin further discloses further comprising an intermediate finger 14 disposed between (as evidenced in Figs. 1-4; it is noted “If something is between two things, it has one of the things on one side of it and the other thing on the other side of it”; between. (n.d.) Collins COBUILD English Usage. (1992, 2004, 2011, 2012). Retrieved August 19 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/between) the medial finger and the lateral finger (as in Figs. 1-4) and extending in the heel-to-toe direction (Figs. 1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Luthi, US 2001/0001907] in view of [Grott, US 2015/0327624, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 10/16/2025].
Regarding claim 2:
Luthi discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Luthi does not expressly disclose wherein the midfoot portion comprises reinforcement ribs.
However, Grott teaches a support plate 12 wherein a midfoot portion 16 comprises (“reinforing elements 76...positioned on midfoot portion 16”; para 48) reinforcement ribs (“reinforcing elements 76...ribs 76, spines 76”; para 48).
Grott further teaches the reinforcement ribs are “configured to reinforce and/or stiffen support plate 12...Such reinforcing elements 76 may add thickness to areas of support plate 12...which may increase stiffness, rigidity, strength, and/or otherwise reinforce” (para 48).
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 support plate of Luthi such that the midfoot portion comprises reinforcement ribs in order to reinforce and/or stiffen the support plate in the midfoot portion and/or to increase stiffness, rigidity, strength, and/or otherwise reinforce the support plate in the midfoot portion, as suggested by Grott (para 48).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Luthi, US 2001/0001907] and [Grott, US 2015/0327624] as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of [Stien, US 2016/0278476, newly cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Luthi in view of Grott teaches The support plate according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Luthi further discloses forefoot portion and the heel portion are wider than the midfoot portion in a medial-lateral direction (as in annotated Fig. 6 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1).
Luthi does not expressly wherein the forefoot portion and the heel portion are wider than the middle midfoot portion in a medial-lateral direction, and wherein the heel portion is wider than the forefoot portion in the medial- lateral direction.
However, Stien teaches (Figs. 1-5 and 9-11) a support plate 50 wherein a heel portion (see annotated Figs. 5 and 9 – a below) appears to be wider than both a midfoot portion and a forefoot portion (see annotated Figs. 5 and 9 – a below).
PNG
media_image6.png
808
1038
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Stien further teaches the heel portion is configured such that it “accommodates a counter balance to such tip or rocking tendency” when “a person will balance by maintaining a slight forward lean or a slight forward angling of the tibia 37 (or shift of body weight to be slightly forward of center body weight for controlled balance, i.e., people subconsciously maintain a slight forward-oriented balance when standing upright and/or when walking)” (para 55).
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 Luthi such that the forefoot portion and the heel portion are wider than the middle midfoot portion in a medial-lateral direction, and wherein the heel portion is wider than the forefoot portion in the medial- lateral direction, as appears to be the case in Stein, in order to reduce the tendency of a sole structure comprising the support plate from rocking or tipping backwards, as suggested by Stien (para 55).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lussier, US 6,954,998] in view of [Tarrier, US 2016/0255905, newly cited].
Regarding claim 10:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier does not expressly disclose wherein the forefoot portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 5.0 mm and the heel portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 8.0 mm.
Lussier does teach “the thickness of the chassis or chassis/skin construct can be varied. In one embodiment, the thickness of a first portion of the chassis or chassis/skin construct is different from the thickness of a second portion. For example, the first portion and the second portion can be the forefoot and the rearfoot portions” (col. 3 lines 10-15).
Lussier further teaches “Support...can be tunable by adjusting...the thickness of the material” (col. 7 lines 4-7)
Tarrier teaches a support plate (“plate”; para 51) for a footwear sole (Abstract) which has a thickness of within the range of “approximately 1 mm to 3 mm thick”, wherein “Such a thickness has shown to result in a sufficiently stiff stabilizing element that is rather lightweight” (para 51).
Because Tarrier is concerned with desired stiffness and weight and provides a range (within the range of “approximately 1 mm to 3 mm thick”) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed thickness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired plate properties. The claimed thickness is merely an optimum or workable thickness and the thickness of the plate within a region is expected to affect stiffness and weight of the plate within that region.
Accordingly, 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 support plate of Lussier such that its forefoot portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 3.0 mm and the heel portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 3.0 mm in order to provide a combination of stiffness and weight in each of the forefoot and heel portions that is desirable to at least some user(s) thereof.
In adopting the modification, the limitation “wherein the forefoot portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 5.0 mm and the heel portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 8.0 mm” would be met insofar as a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 3.0 mm is a thickness that is within the claimed range for the heel portion and a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 3.0 mm is within the claimed range for the forefoot portion.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lussier, US 6,954,998].
Regarding claim 12:
Lussier discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Lussier Figs. 2A-2G does not expressly disclose wherein the heel portion is stiffer than the forefoot portion.
However and in further view of Lussier:
Lussier teaches “Areas of the footwear that require more flexibility typically require a less stiff chassis 2, allowing those areas to be more compliant to pressure. The design of the chassis 2, as well as the selection of material, can provide even greater flexibility. For example, certain areas of the forefoot portion 6, such as the finger-shaped elements 10 and the spaces 14 in the forefoot portion, form a forefoot flex zone 18. The forefoot flex zone 18 allows for greater maneuverability, especially when a wearer, such as a football player, needs to change directions quickly” (col. 4 lines 49-58).
Accordingly, Lussier col. 4 lines 49-58 teaches the forefoot portion is desired to be less stiff than other portions of the support plate.
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 support plate of Lussier such that the heel portion is stiffer than the forefoot portion in order to permit the forefoot portion to be more compliant to pressure than the heel portion and/or to permit more flexion to occur in the forefoot portion than in the heel portion for the purpose of permitting forefoot flexing for maneuverability, as suggested by Lussier (col. 4 lines 49-58).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Martin, US 5,329,704] in view of [Grott, US 2015/0327624, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 10/16/2025].
Regarding claim 18:
Martin discloses The support plate according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Martin does not expressly disclose wherein the midfoot portion comprises reinforcement ribs extending in the heel-to-toe direction.
However, Grott teaches a support plate 12 wherein a midfoot portion 16 comprises (“reinforing elements 76...positioned on midfoot portion 16”; para 48) reinforcement ribs (“reinforcing elements 76...ribs 76, spines 76”; para 48) extending in a heel-to-toe direction (as in Fig. 1 wherein reinforcement ribs 76 extend in a heel-to-toe direction; refer to Fig. 1).
Grott further teaches the reinforcement ribs are “configured to reinforce and/or stiffen support plate 12...Such reinforcing elements 76 may add thickness to areas of support plate 12...which may increase stiffness, rigidity, strength, and/or otherwise reinforce” (para 48).
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 support plate of Martin such that the midfoot portion comprises reinforcement ribs extending in the heel-to-toe direction in order to reinforce and/or stiffen the support plate in the midfoot portion and/or to increase stiffness, rigidity, strength, and/or otherwise reinforce the support plate in the midfoot portion, as suggested by Grott (para 48).
Regarding claim 19:
Martin in view of Grott teach The support plate according to claim 18, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 18 above, the modified Martin does not meet the limitation wherein the reinforcement ribs extend into the forefoot portion.
However and in further view of Grott:
Grott Fig. 1 shows a reinforcement rib 76 extending into a forefoot portion 40 and Grott Fig. 10 shows a reinforcement rib 76 extending into a forefoot portion 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 Martin such that the reinforcement ribs extend into the forefoot portion in order to reinforce and/or stiffen the support plate in both the midfoot portion and the forefoot portion and/or to increase stiffness, rigidity, strength, and/or otherwise reinforce the support plate in the both the midfoot portion and the forefoot portion, as suggested by Grott (para 48).
Regarding claim 20:
Martin in view of Grott teach The support plate according to claim 20, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 19above, the modified Martin does not meet the limitation wherein the reinforcement ribs extend into one or more of the medial finger or the lateral finger.
However and in further view of Grott:
Grott Fig. 1 shows a reinforcement rib 76 extending into a medial finger 18 and a reinforcement rib 76 extending into a lateral finger 20 and Grott Fig. 10 shows a reinforcement rib 76 extending into a medial finger 18 and a reinforcement rib 76 extending into a lateral finger 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 Martin such that the reinforcement ribs extend into one or more of the medial finger or the lateral finger in order to reinforce and/or stiffen one or more of the medial and lateral fingers of the support plate and/or to increase stiffness, rigidity, strength, and/or otherwise reinforce one or more of the medial and lateral fingers of the support plate, as suggested by Grott (para 48).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights