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 . Claims 1-14 are being treated on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications CN202322461992.5 filed in China on 09/11/2023. However, a certified copy for the foreign priority document as required by 37 CFR 1.55 has not been received. Applicant is reminded that Applicant is ultimately responsible that the certified copy is present to perfect priority.
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 claimed feature "the fixing structure comprises an annular seat" in claim 12 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 1 is objected to as it sets forth a plurality of elements; however, the plurality of elements are not separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m) require each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, "the interior of the shoe" appears to read "an interior of the shoe" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 1, line 2, "the external environment" appears to read "an external environment" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 2, line 3, "the exhaust direction" appears to read "an exhaust direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 7, lines 1-2, "the interior of the heat dissipation tube" appears to read "an interior of the heat dissipation tube" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 10, line 3, "the openings" appears to read "openings" as it is the first time the limitation is recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: heat-dissipating component in claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 13-14; and "fixing structure" in claim 11.
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 2-3, 5, and 8-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the heat-dissipating component is positioned along the exhaust direction of the exhaust channel", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously set forth the heat-dissipating component being disposed on the exhaust channel without blocking the exhaust channel. It is unclear how the heat-dissipating component is orientated so as to be considered as being positioned along the exhaust direction of the exhaust channel. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the heat-dissipating component can be orientated in any direction on the exhaust channel.
Claim 3 recites the term "which". The claim has previously defined a plurality of items. It is unclear which item is being referred to. For examination purposes, "which" has been construed to be the guide groove.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites the limitation "the guide groove" with two instances, which render the claim indefinite. A guide groove is first defined in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the first instance of "the guide groove" has been construed to be "a guide groove".
Claim 8 depends from claim 4 and recites the limitation "the guide groove", which render the claim indefinite. A guide groove is first defined in claim 3. For examination purposes, "the guide groove" has been construed to be "a guide groove".
Claim 8 depends from claim 4 and recites the limitation "the heat-dissipating end", which renders the claim indefinite. A heat-dissipating end is first defined in claim 5. For examination purposes, "the heat-dissipating end" has been construed to be "a heat-dissipating end".
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitations "the exhaust passage" and "the heat-dissipating end", which render the claim indefinite. An exhaust passage is first defined in claim 4, and a heat-dissipating end is first defined in claim 5. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 9 depends from claim 5.
Claim 10 depends from claims 1, 9 and recites the limitation "the openings of the air-guiding slots are oriented in the same direction as the exhaust outlet", which renders the claim indefinite. First, an exhaust outlet is first defined in claim 4. Second, the claim has not defined the exhaust outlet has a direction. It is unclear what direction is being referred to. For examination purposes and taking the above interpretation for claim 9, the limitation has been construed to be openings of the air-guiding slots are oriented toward the exhaust outlet.
Claim 11 depends from claims 1, 9 and recites the limitation "the guide groove", which render the claim indefinite. A guide groove is first defined in claim 3. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 11 depends from claim 3.
The examiner that the claims include a significant amount of claim dependency issues, which cause the indefiniteness of the claims. Effort has been made to identify all the indefinite issues; however, the above list is not necessarily to be comprehensive. In addition, the interpretations aforementioned do not necessarily constitute suggestions. Applicant is recommended to carefully review the claims and make proper amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JP 2006192218 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a breathable and cooling shoe (figs. 1-7; see English translation; para. 0013), comprising
a sole (insole 1; figs. 1-7; paras. 0015, 0024);
wherein an exhaust channel (air discharge pipe 4A; figs. 6-7; paras. 0015, 0026) is provided on the sole (figs. 6-7; paras. 0015, 0026) for communicating the interior of the shoe with the external environment of the shoe (via air chamber 6 and check valves 5C; figs. 6-7; paras. 0015, 0026);
wherein the sole is further provided with a heat-dissipating component (Peltier element 11 comprising two integrated plates 12, 14, and heat sink 13 comprising spaced-apart parallel fins; figs. 6-7, 9; para. 0026), the heat-dissipating component cooperating with the exhaust channel (air discharge pipe 4A; figs. 6-7, 9; para. 0026) such that, when gas inside the shoe is discharged through the exhaust channel, heat from the heat-dissipating component is carried out (figs. 6-7, 9; paras. 0026, 0033).
Applicant, in the specification, has defined "heat-dissipating component" as one of the two configurations: 1) a heat dissipation tube with a sealed hollow structure, the interior of the heat dissipation tube being provided with a water-absorbing material layer and a cooling liquid filled within the water-absorbing material layer (paras. 0011-0012); or 2) an item comprising a base plate, and a plurality of parallel heat-dissipating fins being spaced apart from each other and extending downward from the base plate (paras. 0014-0015). Therefore, the heat-dissipating component of Kato, comprising a base plate, and a plurality of parallel heat-dissipating fins being spaced apart from each other and extending downward from the base plate, meets the claimed structural requirement of configuration 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating component (Peltier element 11 and heat sink 13; figs. 7, 9) is disposed on the exhaust channel (air discharge pipe 4A; figs. 6-7, 9) without blocking the exhaust channel (as air passes discharge pipe 4A and is discharged outside of the shoe through pump 6; see figs. 7, 9; para. 0026), and the heat-dissipating component is positioned along the exhaust direction of the exhaust channel (figs. 6-7, 9).
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the exhaust channel comprises an airway port (air inlets 3; figs. 6-7; para. 0016) located within the sole (figs. 6-7; para. 0016), an exhaust outlet (an open end of air discharge passage 4B after check valve 5C; figs. 6-7; paras. 0015-0016) located on an outer side of the sole (figs. 6-7; paras. 0015-0016), and an exhaust passage (air discharge passages 4A, 4B and air chamber 6; figs. 6-7; paras. 0015-0016) connecting the airway port and the exhaust outlet (figs. 6-7; paras. 0015-0016).
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clodic (US 5,953,834 A).
Regarding claim 1, Clodic discloses a breathable and cooling shoe (shoe 7; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 26-31), comprising
a sole (inner sole 11; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 26-31);
wherein an exhaust channel (first air circulation conduit 15; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 53-56) is provided on the sole for communicating the interior of the shoe with the external environment of the shoe (via air outlet orifice 17; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 40-56);
wherein the sole is further provided with a heat-dissipating component (heat pipe 13; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 31-35), the heat-dissipating component cooperating with the exhaust channel (fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 40-56) such that, when gas inside the shoe is discharged through the exhaust channel, heat from the heat-dissipating component is carried out (fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 40-56).
Clodic further discloses the heat pipe 13 is a heat dissipation tube (same structure as the heat pipe 3; figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 49-67) with a sealed hollow structure (a tight enclosure being closed on itself; figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 49-57), the interior of the heat dissipation tube being provided with a water-absorbing material layer (an inner gauze 6 configured to perform the function of capillary drainage of the liquid water phase, therefore be capable of absorbing water; fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 63-67) and a cooling liquid (a fluid such as water; figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 49-57) filled within the water-absorbing material layer (caused by capillary effect as discussed above; fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 63-67).
Applicant, in the specification, has defined "heat-dissipating component" as one of the two configurations: 1) a heat dissipation tube with a sealed hollow structure, the interior of the heat dissipation tube being provided with a water-absorbing material layer and a cooling liquid filled within the water-absorbing material layer (paras. 0011-0012); or 2) an item comprising a base plate, and a plurality of parallel heat-dissipating fins being spaced apart from each other and extending downward from the base plate (paras. 0014-0015). Therefore, the heat dissipation tube of Clodic meets the claimed requirement of configuration 1).
Regarding claim 2, Clodic discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating component is disposed on the exhaust channel without blocking the exhaust channel (see fig. 3), and the heat-dissipating component is positioned along the exhaust direction of the exhaust channel (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Clodic discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises a heat dissipation tube (as discussed for claim 1); the heat dissipation tube has a sealed hollow structure (as discussed for claim 1), with a heat-dissipating end disposed at a lower portion of the heat dissipation tube (as discussed for claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Clodic discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein the interior of the heat dissipation tube is provided with a water-absorbing material layer along an inner wall thereof (as discussed for claim 1), and a cooling liquid is filled within the water-absorbing material layer (as discussed for claim 1).
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 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.
Claims 3, 5, 8-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2006192218 A).
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 1. Kato does not explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the sole is provided with a guide groove; the heat-dissipating component is mounted within the guide groove, which is in communication with the exhaust channel. However, Kato disclose wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises the Peltier element 11 with plate 12 above an upper surface of the insole and plate 14 below the upper surface of the insole, and the plate 14 being cooled by the air that passes through the ventilation pipe 4A of the exhaust passage (see figs. 7, 9; paras. 0026, 0033). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that the Peltier element is a unitary element with the two plates connected to each other. As such, one of ordinary skill of the art would further recognize that a groove must exist for holding the two plates of Peltier element 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the sole as disclosed by Kato, with wherein an upper surface of the sole is provided with a guide groove, the heat-dissipating component is mounted within the guide groove, the guide groove being in communication with the exhaust channel, in order to properly accommodate the Peltier element 11 with plate 12 above an upper surface of the insole and plate 14 below the upper surface of the insole, and the plate 14 being cooled by the air that passes through the ventilation pipe 4A of the exhaust passage.
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the guide groove is disposed at the airway port (see annotated fig. 7); the heat-dissipating component comprises a heat-dissipating end (see annotated fig. 7; para. 0026); the heat-dissipating end is located at or above the airway port (at the airway port; see annotated fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 from JP 2006192218 A
Kato does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat-dissipating component is mounted in a guide groove. However, Kato disclose wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises the Peltier element 11 with plate 12 above an upper surface of the insole and plate 14 below the upper surface of the insole, and the plate 14 being cooled by the air that passes through the ventilation pipe 4A of the exhaust passage (see figs. 7, 9; paras. 0026, 0033). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that the Peltier element is a unitary element with the two plates connected to each other. As such, one of ordinary skill of the art would further recognize that a groove must exist for holding the two plates of Peltier element 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the sole as disclosed by Kato, with wherein the heat-dissipating component is mounted in a guide groove, in order to properly accommodate the Peltier element 11 with plate 12 above an upper surface of the insole and plate 14 below the upper surface of the insole, and the plate 14 being cooled by the air that passes through the ventilation pipe 4A of the exhaust passage.
Regarding claim 8, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises the heat-dissipating end (see annotated fig. 7), and at least a portion of the heat-dissipating end is located inside the exhaust passage (see annotated fig. 7).
Kato does not explicitly disclose wherein the guide groove is aligned with the exhaust passage and extends downward into communication with the exhaust passage, the heat-dissipating component is mounted in a guide groove. However, Kato disclose wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises the Peltier element 11 with plate 12 above an upper surface of the insole and plate 14 below the upper surface of the insole, and the plate 14 being cooled by the air that passes through the ventilation pipe 4A of the exhaust passage (see figs. 7, 9; paras. 0026, 0033). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that the Peltier element is a unitary element with the two plates connected to each other. As such, one of ordinary skill of the art would further recognize that a groove must exist for holding the two plates of Peltier element 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the sole as disclosed by Kato, with wherein the guide groove is aligned with the exhaust passage and extends downward into communication with the exhaust passage, the heat-dissipating component is mounted in a guide groove, in order to properly accommodate the Peltier element 11 with plate 12 above an upper surface of the insole and plate 14 below the upper surface of the insole, and the plate 14 being cooled by the air that passes through the ventilation pipe 4A of the exhaust passage.
Regarding claim 9, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises a base plate (Peltier element 11; fig. 7; para. 0026) and heat-dissipating fins (heat sink 13 comprising fins; see fig. 9) extending downward from the base plate (see fig. 9);
the base plate is disposed on an upper surface of the sole (plate 12 of Peltier element 11 is placed inside the shoe and configured for cooling the inside of the shoe; see fig. 7; paras. 0026, 0033), and at least a portion of the heat-dissipating fins is positioned within the exhaust passage (heat sink 13 exposed inside the exhaust pipe 4A; figs. 7, 9; paras. 0026, 0033);
wherein the heat-dissipating end comprises the heat-dissipating fins (see fig. 9 and annotated fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 9, and further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating fins comprise parallel fins spaced apart from one another (see fig. 9), forming air-guiding slots between adjacent fins (see fig. 9); the openings of the air-guiding slots are oriented toward the exhaust outlet (for discharging the air passing through ventilation pipe 4A; figs. 7, 9; para. 0026).
Regarding claim 13, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 1. Kato does not disclose explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the heat-dissipating component is coated with a non-metallic thermally conductive layer. However, the limitation is deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the limitation only requires an upper surface of the heat-dissipating component is a non-metallic thermally conductive layer.
In addition, Kato does disclose wherein the upper surface of the heat-dissipating component comprises a thermally conductive layer (heat absorption plate 12 is exposed in the shoe and configured to absorb heat in the shoe; figs. 7, 9; paras., 0026, 0033), and is configured to contact a wearer's foot (as an upper surface of the insole 1; para. 0024). Further, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a metal surface is generally hard and slippery therefore being undesired as a part of an upper surface of an insole to contact a wearer's foot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the upper surface of the heat-dissipating component as disclosed by Kato, to be a non-metallic thermally conductive material, in order to provide softness and comfort to a wearer's foot. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 13. Kato does not disclose explicitly disclose wherein the non-metallic thermally conductive layer comprises silicone, or the upper surface of the heat-dissipating component is coated with a graphene layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the non-metallic thermally conductive layer as claimed, in order to provide a soft and/or skin-friendly material for the non-metallic thermally conductive layer for the upper surface of the insole. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. 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. Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2006192218 A in view of Zhang (US 2010/0079991 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kato discloses the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 9. Kato does not explicitly disclose wherein the guide groove is further provided with a fixing structure configured to secure the heat-dissipating component. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that it has been a common practice to use a fixing structure to secure a heat-dissipating component in a shoe sole. In addition, Kato discloses wherein the heat-dissipating component comprises a heat sink 13 at a lower part (figs. 6-7; para. 0026). Further, Zhang, in an analogous art, teaches a fixing structure (gasket 50 which is substantially a rectangular ring; figs. 1-2; paras. 0014, 0020) being provided to secure a heat sink (heat sink 30; figs. 1-4; para. 0014) in place in a device (a LED lamp 10; figs. 1-4; paras. 0014, 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the sole as taught by Kato wherein the guide groove is further provided with a fixing structure configured to secure the heat-dissipating component as taught by Zhang, in order to prevent the heat-dissipating component from moving out of place when the shoe is being worn. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Applicant, in the specification, has defined that the fixing structure comprises an annular seat (para. 0017). Therefore, the fixing structure of Zhang meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 12, Kato and Zhang, in combination, disclose the breathable and cooling shoe according to claim 11, and Kato further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating fins extend into the exhaust channel (heat sink 13 exposed inside the exhaust pipe 4A; see figs. 7, 9; para. 0033). As discussed for claim 11, by combination of Kato and Zhang, wherein the fixing structure comprises an annular seat (see the discussion above). Zhang further teaches wherein the heat sink includes an extending edge engaged with the annular seat (figs. 1-4; para. 0021); the heat-dissipating fins pass through the annular seat and extend out of the annular seat (figs. 1-4; para. 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the sole as disclosed by Kato, with wherein the heat-dissipating component includes an extending edge engaged with the annular seat; the heat-dissipating fins pass through the annular seat and extend out of the annular seat as taught by Zhang, in order to secure the heat sink in the shoe sole and prevent the heat-dissipating component from moving out of place when the shoe is being worn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Numata (JP 2020156976 A) also discloses a shoe sole comprising an exhaust channel and a heat-dissipating component cooperating with the exhaust channel such that, when gas inside the shoe is discharged through the exhaust channel, heat from the heat-dissipating component is carried out.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 on (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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732