DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A: Figs. 1-4: a support plate comprising a first finger, a second finger, and a third finger; the first finger may comprise a hook 121 located at the toe-end 15, and the second finger may comprise a hook 111 located at the toe-end; a middle portion 30 may comprise reinforcement ribs that extend in longitudinal direction; the middle portion 30 may comprise three reinforcement ribs 32 in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Office has not explained what differences make the alleged Species independent and distinct” and “Species A and F are not independent or distinct species” and “there is no serious search or examination burden”.
This is not found persuasive because Species A and F are independent or distinct because, as disclosed, the species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each species as described in the restriction requirement of 10/23/2025; see p. 2-3 thereof including at least the reinforcement ribs 32 of Species A and the through holes 11a, 12a, 13a of Species F. In addition and although the restriction requirement of 10/23/2025 does not identify each and every difference between Species A and Species F as disclosed, it is noted that the drawings show mutually exclusive characteristics of each species including at least the geometric shape of aperture 25, which is different between Species A and Species F; and also the spatial arrangement of the three fingers individually and in relation to each other is different between Species A including at least the arrangement of the centermost finger relative to the heel-to-toe axis HT.
This is not found further not persuasive because there is a serious search and/or examination burden as set forth in the restriction requirement of 10/23/2025 (see p. 4 thereof). Applicant’s specific argument that “There are various overlapping features between the identified figure sets such that there is no serious...burden” is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because the restriction requirement does not allege that there are no overlapping features; rather, the restriction requirement states the species, as disclosed, have mutually exclusive characteristics and are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant’s reply identifies claims 1-15 as reading on the elected species.
However, claim 15 is withdrawn by the Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted claim 15 recites “at least one finger...comprises a through hole”, which is a feature of nonelected Species F. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Accordingly:
Claims 1-15 are presented.
Claim 15 is withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1-14 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Drawings
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 first portion comprises at least two wings of claim 14 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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 lines 1-2: “wherein the first portion comprises a middle portion” should be --wherein the support plate comprises a middle portion--
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 13 is 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.
Claim 13 line 2 recites “is configured to provide additional cushioning”. Usage of the term “additional” renders the claim indefinite insofar as it is not clear what the cushioning is “additional” to. No other element introduced in claim 13 or its parent claim is capable of cushioning and/or is described as a cushioning material, and accordingly it is not clear what cushioning must be capable of being provided in order for it to be “additional” as claimed. For the purpose of applying art, the term “to provide additional cushioning” is interpreted as if it reads --to provide cushioning--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Buratto, EP-3122198-B1].
Regarding claim 1:
Buratto discloses (Figs. 4-8):
A support plate 10 configured to be arranged in a sole structure of a shoe (para 1), comprising:
a first portion 20 associated with a forefoot area A of the sole structure (paras 23, 30; and as generally shown in the embodiment of Figs. 1 and 1A); and
a second portion 30 associated with a heel area C of the sole structure (para 23; paras 32 and 34; and as generally shown in the embodiment of Figs. 1 and 1A),
wherein the support plate is thinner in at least a part of the first portion as compared to the second portion (para 57; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2:
Buratto discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Buratto further discloses further comprising a middle portion 40 associated with a mid-foot area B of the sole structure (paras 23 and 27), wherein the middle portion 40 connects the first portion and the second portion (para 27; Figs. 4-5), wherein the middle portion comprises reinforcement ribs 52 (para 70; Figs. 4-5).
(ribs 52 are reinforcement ribs in that they span “substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” (para 70) so as to provide reinforcement for the plate when a force is applied thereto relative to an undisclosed comparison plate which is absent said ribs).
Regarding claim 6:
Buratto discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Buratto further discloses wherein the first portion comprises a middle portion 40 connecting the first portion and the second portion, wherein the support plate comprises at least two fingers 22, 24 extending from the middle portion or the second portion towards a toe-end of the support plate (Figs. 4-8), wherein at least one finger 24 is arranged on a lateral side of the support plate and at least one finger 22 is arranged on a medial side of the support plate (para 31).
Regarding claim 9:
Buratto discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Buratto further discloses wherein the at least two fingers taper towards the toe-end of the support plate (para 60; Figs. 4-8).
Regarding claim 10:
Buratto discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Buratto further discloses wherein the first portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 5.0 mm (i.e. “2-3 mm”; para 61) and the second portion has a thickness of greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 8.0 mm (i.e. “about 8-9 mm”; para 58; wherein it is noted the range of “about 8-9 mm” includes values that are about 8.0 mm and also less than 8.0 mm including, by example, 7.9 mm.
Regarding claim 11:
Buratto discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Buratto further discloses wherein the support plate is configured to distribute a load (“transfer...load”; para 111) over an entirety of a bottom of a foot (support plate 10 is configured to be received within and underlie midsole 5, and midsole 5 is configured to receive a load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot and transfer it to the support plate 10; accordingly the support plate is configured to distribute a load over an entirety of a bottom of a foot as claimed).
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Andraesen, US 2023/0189925].
Regarding claim 1:
Andraesen discloses (Figs. 1-10):
A support plate 121 configured to be arranged in a sole structure 101 of a shoe, comprising:
a first portion (the portion of 121 within forefoot area 12; Fig. 1) associated with a forefoot area 12 of the sole structure; and
a second portion (the portion of 121 within heel area 16; Fig. 1) associated with a heel area 16 of the sole structure,
wherein the support plate is thinner in at least a part of the first portion as compared to the second portion (“plate 121 may have a thickness in the heel and mid-foot regions that is greater than a thickness in the forefoot region”; para 62).
Regarding claim 13:
Andraesen discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Andraesen further discloses wherein the second portion comprises an aperture 507 in the heel area, wherein the aperture is configured to provide additional cushioning for a heel of a user (aperture 507 is configured to receive element 405 (para 60) of cushioning element 122 (para 53) therein such that aperture 507 is configured to provide additional cushioning via at least being capable of accommodating cushioning element 122 therein).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Grott, US 2015/0327624, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 10/16/2025].
Regarding claim 1:
Grott discloses (Figs. 1-2):
A support plate 12 configured to be arranged in a sole structure 14 of a shoe 10, comprising:
a first portion 80 associated with a forefoot area of the sole structure (para 51); and
a second portion 48 associated with a heel area of the sole structure (para 51),
wherein the support plate is thinner in at least a part of the first portion as compared to the second portion (“thickness 100 in heel portion 48 may be greater than a respective thickness 100 in midfoot portion 16 and/or forefoot portion 80 of support plate 12”; para 68).
Regarding claim 2:
Grott discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Grott further discloses further comprising a middle portion 16 associated with a mid-foot area of the sole structure (para 51), wherein the middle portion connects the first portion and the second portion (para 51), wherein the middle portion comprises reinforcement ribs (“Arch support 96” of the middle portion “include...76...one or more ribs”; para 76; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4:
Grott discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Although Grott Figs. 1-2 does not disclose wherein the second portion comprises at least one wing extending upwards to support a heel of a user, Grott Figs. 8-9 nonetheless meets both claim 1 and claim 4 limitations; i.e:
Grott Figs. 8-9 discloses:
A support plate 12 configured to be arranged in a sole structure 14 of a shoe 10, comprising:
a first portion 80 associated with a forefoot area of the sole structure (para 51); and
a second portion 48 associated with a heel area of the sole structure (para 51),
wherein the support plate is thinner in at least a part of the first portion as compared to the second portion (“thickness 100 in heel portion 48 may be greater than a respective thickness 100 in midfoot portion 16 and/or forefoot portion 80 of support plate 12”; para 68);
wherein the second portion 48 comprises at least one wing 76 extending upwards (para 85; Fig. 8) to support a heel of a user (wings 76 are configured to underlie and support a heel of a wearer).
Regarding claim 5:
Grott Figs. 8-9 discloses The support plate according to claim 4, as set forth above.
Grott Figs. 8-9 further discloses wherein the second portion comprises at least two wings 76 being arranged opposite each other on lateral and medial sides of the support plate (para 85; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Grott Figs. 1-2 further discloses wherein the first portion comprises a middle portion 16 connecting the first portion and the second portion (para 22; Figs. 1-2), wherein the support plate comprises at least two fingers 18, 20 extending from the middle portion or the second portion towards a toe-end of the support plate, wherein at least one finger 20 is arranged on a lateral side of the support plate and at least one finger 18 is arranged on a medial side of the support plate.
Regarding claim 7:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Grott Figs. 1-2 further discloses wherein each finger of the at least two fingers comprises a hook 86, wherein the hook of the at least one finger on the lateral side is directed to the medial side (para 58; Fig. 1) and the hook of the at least one finger on the medial side is directed to the lateral side (para 58; Fig. 1), wherein the at least one finger on the medial side is configured to support a big toe of a user (para 52; Fig. 1; it is further noted the support plate will fit wearers of different sizes differently such that the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 8:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Grott Figs. 1-2 further discloses wherein and additional finger 94 is provided between the at least two fingers (para 63; Fig. 1), wherein the additional finger 94 is shorter than (para 94) either of the at least two fingers.
Regarding claim 11:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Grott Figs. 1-2 further discloses wherein the support plate is configured to distribute a load (“force...transmitted”; Abstract) over an entirety of a bottom of a foot.
(support plate 12 is configured to underlie a midsole and receive load applied by the entire foot via the midsole such that the support plate is configured to distribute a load over an entirety of a foot as claimed)
Regarding claim 12:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Grott further discloses wherein the second portion is stiffer than the first portion (“medial leg 18 and/or lateral leg 20 may have a lesser stiffness than heel portion 48”; para 60).
Regarding claim 13:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Grott further discloses wherein the second portion comprises an aperture 74 in the heel area, wherein the aperture is configured to provide additional cushioning for a heel of a user (aperture 74 is configured such that a midsole provided atop the support plate can deform, via heel pressure, into the aperture, thereby absorbing heel pressure energy and cushioning said heel pressure energy, when such heel pressure is applied to the midsole such that the aperture is configured to provide additional cushioning as claimed).
Regarding claim 14:
Grott Figs. 1-2 discloses The support plate according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Grott further discloses wherein the first portion comprises at least two wings 88 arranged opposite each other on a lateral side of the support plate and a medial side of the support plate (“One or more ribs 88 may be formed on upper surface 5...of medial leg 18 and/or lateral leg 20”; para 58; Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Grott, US 2015/0327624, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 10/16/2025].
Regarding claim 3:
Grott discloses The support plate according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Grott further discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are wider than the middle portion in a medial-lateral direction (para 68; Fig. 1).
Grott Figs. 1-2 does not expressly disclose and wherein the second portion is wider than the first portion in the medial-lateral direction.
In further view of Grott:
Grott teaches “is within the scope of the present disclosure that a support plate 12 may include only a medial leg 18, only a lateral leg 20, or a single forefoot leg that extends under the medial and lateral forefoot portions of the wearer's foot” (para 54).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the support plate of Grott Figs. 1-2 such that it is provided with only the medial leg 18 and not the lateral leg 20, thereby yielding the second portion being wider than the first portion, in order to yield the predictable result of a support plate that provides energy return to the medial portion of the forefoot and not to the lateral portion of the forefoot.
And/or
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 Grott Figs. 1-2 such that it is provided with only the lateral leg 20 and not the medial leg 18, thereby yielding the second portion being wider than the first portion, in order to yield the predictable result of a support plate that provides energy return to the medial portion of the forefoot and not to the lateral portion of the forefoot.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Andraesen, US 2023/0189925].
Regarding claim 4:
Andraesen discloses The support plate according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Andraesen Figs. 1-10 does not expressly disclose wherein the second portion comprises at least one wing extending upwards to support a heel of a user.
However and in further view of Andraesen:
Andraesen Fig. 11A teaches providing a second portion of a plate 121 with at least one wing 508 extending upwards to support a heel of a user, the second portion comprises at least two wings 508 arranged opposite each other on lateral and medial sides of the support plate.
Andresen teaches the embodiment of Fig. 11A is “an alternative embodiment” provided with wings 508 “disposed only in the heel...present only on the medial and lateral side” as opposed to the “sidewall 508...surround a substantial entirety of the plate 121” of Figs. 1-10.
Andresen further teaches the plate 121 of Fig. 11A is configured to “cooperate with upper cushioning element 120 in the heel” (para 65).
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 Andraesen Figs. 1-10 such that its second portion is provided with at least one wing extending upwards to support a heel of a user, the second portion comprises at least two wings arranged opposite each other on lateral and medial sides of the support plate in order to permit the plate to cooperate with upper cushioning element, as suggested by Andraesen (para 65). One of ordinary skill would have expected the plate so arranged to be capable of so cooperating whether it were provided with a singular sidewall as in Figs. 1-10 or whether it were provided with the at least two wings as modified.
Regarding claim 5:
Andraesen teaches The support plate according to claim 4, as set forth above.
The modified Andraesen further meets the limitation wherein the second portion comprises at least two wings being arranged opposite each other on lateral and medial sides of the support plate (refer to above treatment of claim 4 where the limitation is addressed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732