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 without traverse of Species B1 (Fig. 21-31) in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63664876, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application 63664876 Fig 1-7 only provide the support for the Fig. 1-7 of the unelected Species A. The provisional application herein completely lacks any support or discussion of a shoe having a lattice contained within (claims 1-18) nor is there any discussion of the healing plug and healing area contained within the sole (claims 5-9, 14-18). As such, claims 1-18 of the present application do not have priority to the provisional application 63664876 and its filing date of 6/27/2024.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63801747, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application herein completely lacks any support or discussion of a shoe having the healing plug and healing area contained within the sole (claims 5-9, 14-18). As such, claims 5-9 and 14-18 of the present application do not have priority to the provisional application 63801747 and its filing date of 5/7/2025.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63791202, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application herein completely lacks any support or discussion of a shoe having the healing plug and healing area contained within the sole (claims 5-9, 14-18). As such, claims 5-9 and 14-18 of the present application do not have priority to the provisional application 63791202 and its filing date of 4/18/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening mechanism” in claims 1 and 10; being Velcro (hook and loop straps), shoe laces, clap fasteners, magnets and zippers (instant application [0123]) and equivalents therein.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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 1 recites “the outer dorsal” in line 6. There is a lack of sufficient antecedent basis for the term. Examiner will interpret as “the outer dorsal shell”.
Claims 2-9 rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the outer dorsal” in line 8. There is a lack of sufficient antecedent basis for the term. Examiner will interpret as “the outer dorsal shell”.
Claims 11-18 rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “a fastening mechanism that secures the outer shell and the outer dorsal to the foot of the individual” wherein this is positively claiming the structure of the invention positively with “secures” to the foot of the human, thus positively claiming the human therein. Claim 1 is rejected thus under 101 for encompassing a human. Examiner recommends amending to use “configured to” language.
Claims 2-9 rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the outer shell and the inner lattice shell encase a foot of an individual” and “the outer dorsal shell and the inner dorsal lattice encase the top of the foot of the individual” wherein this is positively claiming the shells/lattices herein acting on the foot of the human individual, thus positively claiming the human therein. Claim 10 is rejected thus under 101 for encompassing a human. Examiner recommends amending to use “configured to” language.
Claim 10 recites “a fastening mechanism that secures the outer shell and the outer dorsal to the foot of the individual” wherein this is positively claiming the structure of the invention positively with “secures” to the foot of the human, thus positively claiming the human therein. Claim 10 is rejected thus under 101 for encompassing a human. Examiner recommends amending to use “configured to” language.
Claims 11-18 rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
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) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponomarev (US 20260020643 A1) in view of Walborn (US 10939723 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ponomarev discloses a shoe (10) (Fig. 8-12, 17-19 and [0082]) comprising:
an outer shell (22) to encase a foot of an individual (Fig. 8-12);
an outer dorsal shell (20) to encase a top of the foot of the patient (Fig. 8-12);
an inner lattice shell (18) configured to fit within the outer shell (22) (Fig. 8-12, [0037, 0082] lattice insole 18 being an inner lattice shell placed into the outer shell 22);
an inner dorsal lattice (19) configured to fit within the outer dorsal shell (20) (Fig. 8-12, [0037, 0085] upper pad 19 being a lattice and thus an inner dorsal lattice placed into the outer dorsal shell).
Ponomarev is silent on a fastening mechanism that secures the outer shell and the outer dorsal shell to the foot of the individual.
Ponomarev does acknowledge the footwear formed being of conventional footwear styles (see [0081]).
However, Walborn teaches an analogous shoe (Fig. 2) having an analogous outer shell (sole 23, Fig. 2) and an analogous outer dorsal shell (upper portion 25, Fig. 2), wherein there are straps 27 provided as fastening mechanisms to mate the shoe to the foot of the user (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 16-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the outer shell (22) and outer dorsal shell (20) to have a fastening mechanism (straps 27) that secures the outer shell and the outer dorsal to the foot of the individual as taught by Walborn in order to provide standard known in the art structure for securing footwear to a user securely (Walborn Col. 2 lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 10, Ponomarev discloses a shoe (10) (Fig. 8-12, 17-19 and [0082]) comprising:
an outer shell (22) (Fig. 8-12) and an inner lattice shell (18) secured to an interior side of the outer shell (22) (Fig. 8-12, [0037, 0082] lattice insole 18 being an inner lattice shell placed into the outer shell 22) such that the outer shell (22) and the inner lattice shell (18) encase a foot of an individual (Fig. 8-12);
an outer dorsal shell (20) and an inner dorsal lattice (19) secured to an interior side of the outer dorsal shell (20) (Fig. 8-12, [0037, 0085] upper pad 19 being a lattice and thus an inner dorsal lattice placed into the outer dorsal shell) such that the outer dorsal shell (20) and the inner dorsal shell (19) encase the top of the foot of the patient (Fig. 8-12).
Ponomarev is silent on a fastening mechanism that secures the outer shell and the outer dorsal shell to the foot of the individual.
Ponomarev does acknowledge the footwear formed being of conventional footwear styles (see [0081]).
However, Walborn teaches an analogous shoe (Fig. 2) having an analogous outer shell (sole 23, Fig. 2) and an analogous outer dorsal shell (upper portion 25, Fig. 2), wherein there are straps 27 provided as fastening mechanisms to mate the shoe to the foot of the user (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 16-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the outer shell (22) and outer dorsal shell (20) to have a fastening mechanism (straps 27) that secures the outer shell and the outer dorsal to the foot of the individual as taught by Walborn in order to provide standard known in the art structure for securing footwear to a user securely (Walborn Col. 2 lines 16-25).
Claim(s) 2-7, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponomarev (US 20260020643 A1) in view of Walborn (US 10939723 B2) in view of Bleicher (US 20200238626 A1).
Regarding claims 2-4, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner lattice shell further comprises at least one recessed area (claim 2); the at least one recessed area is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell (claim 3); and wherein the at least one recessed area is located on a side of the inner lattice shell (claim 4).
However, Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10) wherein there may be at least one recessed area 102 located on the sole 101 therein (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 in the sole 101 is a recessed area), and wherein the at least one recessed area is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10, the recessed area 102 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one recessed area 102 as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166]), thus as combined the at least one recessed area is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell 18 of Ponamarev, and is located on a side of the inner lattice shell being the top side of the sole 18 of Ponomarev.
Regarding claim 5-7, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner lattice shell further comprises at least one healing area defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area (claim 5), wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell (claim 6), and wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a side of the inner lattice shell (claim 7).
Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10-12 and [0166]), wherein there may be at least one healing area defined by an aperture 102 (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 being a healing area for a wound or ulcer) and at least one healing plug 121 that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area 102 (Fig. 12A-12B and [0168]), wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10-12, the recessed area 102 and plug 121 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one healing area defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166, 0168]), thus as combined the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell 18 of Ponamarev, and is located on a side of the inner lattice shell being the top side of the sole 18 of Ponomarev.
Regarding claims 11-13, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 10 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner lattice shell further comprises at least one recessed area (claim 11); the at least one recessed area is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell (claim 12); and wherein the at least one recessed area is located on a side of the inner lattice shell (claim 13).
However, Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10) wherein there may be at least one recessed area 102 located on the sole 101 therein (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 in the sole 101 is a recessed area), and wherein the at least one recessed area is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10, the recessed area 102 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one recessed area 102 as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166]), thus as combined the at least one recessed area is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell 18 of Ponamarev, and is located on a side of the inner lattice shell being the top side of the sole 18 of Ponomarev.
Regarding claim 14-16, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 10 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner lattice shell further comprises at least one healing area defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area (claim 14), wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell (claim 15), and wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a side of the inner lattice shell (claim 16).
Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10-12 and [0166]), wherein there may be at least one healing area defined by an aperture 102 (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 being a healing area for a wound or ulcer) and at least one healing plug 121 that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area 102 (Fig. 12A-12B and [0168]), wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10-12, the recessed area 102 and plug 121 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one healing area defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166, 0168]), thus as combined the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a sole of the inner lattice shell 18 of Ponamarev, and is located on a side of the inner lattice shell being the top side of the sole 18 of Ponomarev.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponomarev (US 20260020643 A1) in view of Walborn (US 10939723 B2) in view of Bleicher (US 20200238626 A1) and Randolph (US 20090234264 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner dorsal lattice further comprises at least one recessed area.
However, Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10) wherein there may be at least one recessed area 102 located on the sole 101 therein (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 in the sole 101 is a recessed area), and wherein the at least one recessed area is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10, the recessed area 102 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown for contacting the foot therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one recessed area 102 as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166]).
Ponomarev as combined with Bleicher does not provide for the recessed area being in the inner dorsal lattice 19 of Ponomarev.
However, Randolph teaches an analogous foot 110 wherein there may be a foot wound/ulcer 114 on the dorsal side of the foot (Fig. 1 and [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the recessed area in the inner shell lattice of Ponomarev/Bleicher to be provided in the inner dorsal lattice (19) of Ponomarev which contacts the dorsal side of the foot (Ponomarev Fig. 17) in order to remove pressure from a dorsal ulcer as taught by Randolph and such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that "a mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice" In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (See MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 9, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner dorsal lattice further comprises at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area
Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10-12 and [0166]), wherein there may be at least one healing area defined by an aperture 102 (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 being a healing area for a wound or ulcer) and at least one healing plug 121 that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area 102 (Fig. 12A-12B and [0168]), wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10-12, the recessed area 102 and plug 121 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166, 0168]).
Ponomarev as combined with Bleicher does not provide for the at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug being in the inner dorsal lattice 19 of Ponomarev.
However, Randolph teaches an analogous foot 110 wherein there may be a foot wound/ulcer 114 on the dorsal side of the foot (Fig. 1 and [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug in the inner shell lattice of Ponomarev/Bleicher to be provided in the inner dorsal lattice (19) of Ponomarev which contacts the dorsal side of the foot (Ponomarev Fig. 17) in order to remove pressure from a dorsal ulcer as taught by Randolph and such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that "a mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice" In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (See MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 17, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 10 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner dorsal lattice further comprises at least one recessed area.
However, Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10) wherein there may be at least one recessed area 102 located on the sole 101 therein (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 in the sole 101 is a recessed area), and wherein the at least one recessed area is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10, the recessed area 102 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown for contacting the foot therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one recessed area 102 as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166]).
Ponomarev as combined with Bleicher does not provide for the recessed area being in the inner dorsal lattice 19 of Ponomarev.
However, Randolph teaches an analogous foot 110 wherein there may be a foot wound/ulcer 114 on the dorsal side of the foot (Fig. 1 and [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the recessed area in the inner shell lattice of Ponomarev/Bleicher to be provided in the inner dorsal lattice (19) of Ponomarev which contacts the dorsal side of the foot (Ponomarev Fig. 17) in order to remove pressure from a dorsal ulcer as taught by Randolph and such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that "a mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice" In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (See MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 18, Ponomarev in view of Walborn discloses the invention of claim 10 above.
Ponomarev as combined does not disclose wherein the inner dorsal lattice further comprises at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area
Bleicher teaches an analogous sole 101 (Fig. 10-12 and [0166]), wherein there may be at least one healing area defined by an aperture 102 (Fig. 10 and [0166], aperture 102 being a healing area for a wound or ulcer) and at least one healing plug 121 that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area 102 (Fig. 12A-12B and [0168]), wherein the at least one healing area and at least one healing plug is located on a side of the sole (Fig. 10-12, the recessed area 102 and plug 121 is positioned on a top side of the sole as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner lattice shell sole 18 of Ponomarev to have at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug that is sized to fit within the at least one healing area as taught by Bleicher in order to enable wounds and ulcers of the foot to remain load free when wearing the footwear therein (Bleicher [0166, 0168]).
Ponomarev as combined with Bleicher does not provide for the at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug being in the inner dorsal lattice 19 of Ponomarev.
However, Randolph teaches an analogous foot 110 wherein there may be a foot wound/ulcer 114 on the dorsal side of the foot (Fig. 1 and [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the at least one healing area that is defined by an aperture and at least one healing plug in the inner shell lattice of Ponomarev/Bleicher to be provided in the inner dorsal lattice (19) of Ponomarev which contacts the dorsal side of the foot (Ponomarev Fig. 17) in order to remove pressure from a dorsal ulcer as taught by Randolph and such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that "a mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice" In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (See MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250351922 A1
US 20230233352 A1
US 20260138325 A1
US 20250345988 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights