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 .
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 arrangement claimed in claims 10, 13, 14 and 18-22 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 § 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.
Claims 10, 13, 14, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification and drawings fails to adequately teach or show the limitations recited in claims 10, 13, and 14 because the drawings do not show such and the specification merely vaguely and broadly mentions such as options without any specific or detailed description of what is intended to be encompassed by such language.
Claims 10, 13, and 14 are 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 10 is confusing, vague, and indefinite because it is not clear from the specification and drawings what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language.
Claims 13 and 14 are confusing, vague, and indefinite because it is not clear what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language.
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) 8-15 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jover Todoli (ES1261685, US equivalent 2023/0320460 is used below for explanation purposes).
Todoli shows A modular shoe system comprising:
a shoe base (3) comprising a bottom surface and a top surface;
a footbed (2) comprising a bottom surface and a top surface;
wherein the top surface of the shoe base comprises two or more integrally-formed shoe base protuberances (4b), wherein each integrally-formed shoe base protuberance extends from the top surface of the shoe base and across a width of the shoe base;
wherein the top surface of the shoe base comprises one or more shoe base troughs (see figures between 4b) formed between each two consecutive integrally-form shoe base protuberances along a length direction of the shoe base between a toe end of the shoe base and a heel end of the shoe base;
wherein the two or more integrally-formed shoe base protuberances and the one or more shoe base troughs define a shoe base cross-sectional pattern along the length direction of the shoe base between the toe end of the shoe base and the heel end of the shoe base (see figures 3, 6, and 11);
wherein the bottom surface of the footbed (2) comprises two or more footbed troughs (4a) each extending into the bottom surface of the footbed and across a width of the footbed (see figures 3, 6, and 11):
wherein the bottom surface of the footbed comprises one or more footbed protuberances formed between each two consecutive footbed troughs along a length direction of the footbed between a toe end of the footbed and a heel end of the footbed (see figures between 4a):
wherein the two or more footbed troughs and the one or more footbed protuberances
define a footbed cross-sectional pattern along the length direction of the footbed between the
toe end of the footbed and the heel end of the footbed (see figures) and
wherein the shoe base cross-sectional pattern and the footbed cross-sectional pattern are
complementary such that each of the two or more integrally-formed shoe base protuberances
interlock with a footbed trough to releasably secure the footbed to the shoe base (see figures 1A-2 and 11) as claimed.
In reference to claim 9, see paragraph [0039].
In reference to claim 10, the arrangement shown is considered to be such inasmuch as the applicant has shown such.
In reference to claim 11 the shapes shown are considered to be different as shown in figures 1A-2 and 7.
In reference to claim 12, see figure 7.
In reference to claim 13, the footwear as shown clearly has numerous non-interlocking elements, i.e. all elements other than 4a and 4b.
In reference to claim 14, gaps appear to be shown in figure 7.
In reference to claim 15, see paragraph [0038].
In reference to claim 18, Todoli shows A shoe base (3) for a modular shoe system. the shoe base comprising:
a top surface (see figures):
a bottom surface (see figures): and
a length direction extending between a heel end of the shoe base and a toe end of the shoe
base (see figures);
wherein the top surface of the shoe base comprises one or more integrally-formed shoe
base protuberances (4b), wherein each integrally-formed shoe base protuberance extends from the
top surface of the shoe base and across a width of the shoe base (see figures 3 and 6);
wherein the shoe base comprises an integrally formed upper extending about the toe end
of the shoe base (5): and
wherein each of the one or more integrally-formed shoe base protuberances are formed
only in a particular region of the top surface of the shoe base such that the one or more
integrally-formed shoe base protuberances are not formed along an entire length of the top
surface of the shoe base and each of the one or more integrally-formed shoe base
protuberances are formed closer to the heel end of the shoe base than the toe end of the shoe
base (the arrangement shown by Todoli is considered to show such inasmuch as applicant has disclosed and shown) as claimed.
In reference to claim 19, see 4b.
In reference to claim 20, see figure 7.
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) 16, 17, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todoli in view of Goodyear (4317294).
Todoli as discussed above shows a system and/or base substantially as claimed except for the exact materials for the elements. Goodyear suggests the use of well known and conventional polyurethane materials (see column 5 lines 6-21) for a footwear base (18) and footbed (16). It would have been obvious to use polyurethane as taught by Goodyear for the base and footbed of Todoli to provide a comfortable and cushioning footwear.
In reference to claims 17 and 22, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ethylenevinyl acetate or any other well known and conventional footwear sole materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-22 have been 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights