Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/243,589

INTERCHANGEABLE FOOTBED FOR FOOTWEAR AND A MODULAR SHOE SYSTEM HAVING AN INTERCHANGEABLE FOOTBED

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 19, 2025
Examiner
BAYS, MARIE D
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Csr Developments LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
1281 granted / 1722 resolved
+4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§102
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1722 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . 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 4 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. In claim 4 the phrase “complimentary to the integrally-formed second interlocking elements” is vague and indefinite because it defines the footbed in reference to the shoe system which has not been positively claimed. It is noted that claims 1-7 are directed towards “A footbed” and only recited the modular shoe system as an intended use and therefore it is not positively recited and cannot be used to define the footbed. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Einstein, JR. (3538628). Einstein, Jr. shows A footbed (30) for a modular shoe system, the footbed comprising: a top surface (top of 30); and a bottom surface (bottom of 30): wherein the bottom surface comprises a plurality of integrally-formed (it is noted that 30 and 48 are considered to be integrally formed inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such) first interlocking elements (48); wherein the modular shoe system comprises a plurality of integrally-formed second interlocking elements (it is noted that this phrase is an intended use recitation and a shoe system has not been positively recited and claimed, but it is noted that Einstein does show second interlocking elements 42 on a shoe system (see figures 1-4); wherein the integrally-formed first interlocking elements are complimentary to the integrally-formed second interlocking elements such that the footbed is releasably secured to the modular shoe system by interlocking the plurality of integrally-formed first interlocking elements and the plurality of integrally-formed second interlocking elements (it is noted that this phrase is an intended use recitation and a shoe system has not been positively recited and claimed, but it is noted that Einstein does show second interlocking elements 42) as claimed. In reference to claims 2 and 3, see Einstein, Jr. embodiment shown in figure 6, interlocking elements (38’) are integrally formed of the same material as the footbed (which is made from resilient materials (see column 2 lines 64-66). In reference to claim 4, see figures 2 and 3. In reference to claims 5-7, Einstein, Jr shows a foot support (32) shown as permanently attached/integral with the footbed (30). In reference to claim 8 Einstein, Jr. shows A modular shoe system comprising: a shoe base (36) comprising a bottom surface and a top surface; a midsole (34) comprising a bottom surface and a top surface; and a footbed (30) comprising a bottom surface and a top surface; wherein the top surface of the shoe base is flat (see figures 2-4), wherein the bottom surface of the midsole is flat and coupled to the top surface of the shoe base (see figures 2-4); wherein the top surface of the midsole comprises a plurality of integrally-formed first interlocking elements (42); wherein the bottom surface of the footbed comprises a plurality of integrally- formed second interlocking elements (40); and wherein the integrally-formed first interlocking elements are complimentary to the integrally-formed second interlocking elements such that the footbed is releasably secured to the modular shoe system by interlocking the plurality of integrally-formed first interlocking elements and the plurality of integrally-formed second interlocking elements (see figures 1-4) as claimed. In reference to claims 9 and 10, Einstein, Jr. shows a sole (52 or shown bottom tread layer in figures 3 and 7-10). In reference to claims 11-13, Einstein, Jr shows a foot support (32) shown as permanently attached/integral with the footbed (30). In reference to claim 14, see figure 1. In reference to claim 15, see figure 5. In reference to claims 16 and 17, the upper of Einstein, Jr. is considered to be coupled to the upper by way of the interlocking elements and layers inasmuch as applicant has claimed such. It is noted that the shoe as a whole is considered to be integrally formed inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such. In reference to claims 18 and 19, see Einstein, Jr. embodiment shown in figure 6, interlocking elements (38’) are integrally formed of the same material as the footbed (which is made from resilient materials (see column 2 lines 64-66). In reference to claim 20, the interlocking elements of Einstein, Jr. are shown as attached along their entire length (see figure 2). Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson. (2016/0324264). Johnson shows A footbed (16) for a modular shoe system, the footbed comprising: a top surface (top of 16); and a bottom surface (bottom of 16): wherein the bottom surface comprises a plurality of integrally-formed (as shown in figures) first interlocking elements (48 and 50); wherein the modular shoe system comprises a plurality of integrally-formed second interlocking elements (it is noted that this phrase is an intended use recitation and a shoe system has not been positively recited and claimed, but it is noted that Johnson does show second interlocking elements on a shoe system (see figure 4)); wherein the integrally-formed first interlocking elements are complimentary to the integrally-formed second interlocking elements such that the footbed is releasably secured to the modular shoe system by interlocking the plurality of integrally-formed first interlocking elements and the plurality of integrally-formed second interlocking elements (it is noted that this phrase is an intended use recitation and a shoe system has not been positively recited and claimed, but it is noted that Einstein does show second interlocking elements see figure 6) as claimed. In reference to claims 2 and 3, see Johnson paragraph [0033]. In reference to claim 7, Johnson shows a foot support top integrally formed with the footbed (see figures). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 6/19/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05. 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. In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet. Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425. /MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 19, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582192
FOOTWEAR STRAP AND FOOTWEAR HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575642
Electronically Controlled Bladder Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569025
Footwear Structures Providing Compression and Thermal Treatment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569032
Electronically Controlled Bladder Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564245
Shoe With Interchangeable Upper
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+19.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1722 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month