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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein each of corners” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should read --wherein each of the corners--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “at wave peaks” in line 5. It appears that this limitation should read --at wave troughs--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “ring-shaped” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should read --ring-shape--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “at wave peaks” in line 5. It appears that this limitation should read --at wave troughs--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation “except for the arch portion” in lines 11 and 12, respectively. It is not clear what structure is encompassed by such language, as the claim does not clearly state what it being excepted. For purposes of examination it appears that there are no holes distributed in the arch portion.
Claims 2-13 and 15-20 depend from rejected claims 1 and 14.
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 (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 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) 1-4, 6-7, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plagenhoef (US 4,235,026).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Plagenhoef discloses a footwear comprising: an upper (column 3, lines 10-11); and a sole (10) connected to the upper, the sole comprising: a rearfoot portion; a forefoot portion; and an arch portion connecting the rearfoot portion and the forefoot portion; wherein the forefoot portion, the arch portion and the rearfoot portion are arranged in sequence along a front-back direction (Fig. 1), the sole further comprises a plurality of holes (12, 14, 24, 26) spaced apart in the front-back direction, each of the plurality of holes extends from a side surface of the sole in a left-right direction of the sole, the front-back direction is perpendicular to the left-right direction, the plurality of holes are distributed in the rearfoot portion and the forefoot portion of the sole, except for the arch portion (column 2, lines 10-41; Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Plagenhoef discloses that the plurality of holes comprises a plurality of first holes (12, 14) distributed in the rearfoot portion and a plurality of second holes (24, 26) distributed in the forefoot portion; the rearfoot portion has a first main force-bearing region (rear lower region of rearfoot portion) and a first secondary force-bearing region (front upper portion of rearfoot portion) connected to the first main force-bearing region in the front-back direction, a volume of each of the plurality of first holes located in the first main force-bearing region is greater than a volume of each of the plurality of first holes located in the first secondary force-bearing region (column 2, lines 22-25); and the forefoot portion has a second main force-bearing region (rear lower region of forefoot portion) and a second secondary force-bearing region (front upper portion of forefoot portion) connected to the second main force-bearing region in the front-back direction, a volume of each of the plurality of second holes located in the second main force-bearing region is greater than a volume of each of the plurality of second holes located in the second secondary force-bearing region (column 2, lines 22-25).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Plagenhoef discloses that centers of the plurality of first holes are distributed in a wavy structure along the front-back direction, and centers of the plurality of second holes are distributed in a wavy structure along the front-back direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Plagenhoef discloses that on a cross-section of the sole along a direction perpendicular to the left-right direction, a cross-section of each of the plurality of holes is in a shape of an acute triangle, the acute triangle comprises a base and a top angle opposite to the base in an up-down direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Plagenhoef discloses that the top angle of each of the plurality of first holes located in the first main force-bearing region faces a lower surface of the sole, and the base of each of the plurality of first holes located in the first main force-bearing region faces an upper surface of the sole; and the top angle of each of the plurality of second holes located in the second main force-bearing region faces the lower surface of the sole, and the base of each of the plurality of second holes located in the second main force-bearing region faces the upper surface of the sole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Plagenhoef discloses that the top angle of each of the plurality of holes located at wave peaks of the wavy structure faces a lower surface of the sole, and the base of each of the plurality of holes located at wave peaks of the wavy structure faces an upper surface of the sole; and the top angle of each of the plurality of holes located at trough peaks of the wavy structure faces the upper surface of the sole, and the base of each of the plurality of holes located at wave troughs of the wavy structure faces the lower surface of the sole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, each of the plurality of holes penetrates the sole along the left-right direction (Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Plagenhoef discloses that an area of a cross-section of each of the plurality of holes closer to the side surface is greater than an area of a cross-section of each of the plurality of holes further away from the side surface, and both the cross-section of each of the plurality of holes closer to the side surface and the cross-section of each of the plurality of holes further away from the side surface are perpendicular to the left-right direction (column 2, lines 23-25; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Plagenhoef discloses that the sole further comprises a protrusion in a ring-shaped, the protrusion is arranged along and connected to an outer periphery of the upper surface of the sole, the protrusion and the upper surface cooperate to form a space for accommodating a foot, the protrusion comprises an inclined surface facing the space, and an end of the inclined surface away from the upper surface tilts away from a center axis of the space (Fig. 1-4).
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) 5, 8, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagenhoef, as applied to claims 1-4 and 14-17, in view of Miller et al. (US 5,797,199), herein Miller.
Regarding claim 5, Plagenhoef does not disclose that the corners of the acute triangles are rounded. Miller teaches a sole (105) having a plurality of holes (130a-130c) spaced apart in the front-back direction and extending from a side surface of the sole in the left-right direction. The holes provide cushioning and stability to the foot and return useable energy. The cushioning and stability properties may be varied by varying the characteristics of the holes. The holes are in the shape of triangles with rounded corners (column 5, lines 14-56; column 8, lines 50-59; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to round the corners of the holes Plagenhoef, as taught by Miller, in order to provide specific cushioning and stability characteristics to the sole, depending on the needs of the user.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Plagenhoef discloses that the top angle and the base of each of the holes face a lower surface of the sole and an upper surface of the sole respectively, or the top angle and the base of each of the holes face the upper surface of the sole and the lower surface of the sole respectively (Fig. 2); but does not disclose that the number of holes of the plurality of holes with the top angle facing the upper surface of the sole is less than the number of holes of the plurality of holes with the top angle facing the lower surface of the sole. Miller further teaches that the number of holes of the plurality of holes with the top angle facing the upper surface of the sole is less than the number of holes of the plurality of holes with the top angle facing the lower surface of the sole (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide more holes with the top angle facing the lower surface in the sole of Plagenhoef, as taught by Miller, in order to provide specific cushioning and stability characteristics to the sole, depending on the needs of the user.
Regarding claim 10, Plagenhoef does not disclose a chamfer between an outer end of the inner surface and a side surface of the holes. Miller further teaches a chamfer between an outer end of the inner surface and a side surface of the holes (Fig. 6, 8, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a chamfer between the inner surface and side surface of the holes of Plagenhoef, as taught by Miller, in order to provide specific cushioning and stability characteristics to the sole, depending on the needs of the user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagenhoef, as applied to claim 1, in view of Sakutori (US 4,445,284).
Regarding claim 9, Plagenhoef does not disclose that on a cross-section of the sole along a direction perpendicular to the left-right direction, a cross-section of each of the plurality of holes is in a shape of a rhombus. Sakutori teaches a sole (14) having a plurality of holes (16) spaced apart in the front-back direction and extending from a side surface of the sole in the left-right direction. The holes may have a variety of cross-sectional shapes, including a rhombus (square) (column 2, lines 51-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cross-sectional shape of the holes of Plagenhoef in the shape of a rhombus, as taught by Sakutori, in order to provide specific cushioning and stability characteristics to the sole, depending on the needs of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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 at (571) 272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732