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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed 12 May 2026 has been entered. Currently Claims 21-22, 26-30, 33, 36-37, 40-42 and 45-51 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ARTICLES OF FOOTWEAR HAVING VIBRATING MOTORS
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 45-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0096203) in view of Roh (U.S. Patent No. 11,872,013).
Regarding Claim 45, Brown discloses in Figures 1-7, an article of footwear comprising: a sole 18; a plurality of motors 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46 for at least 3 vibration zones, a battery 58 and control circuitry (electrical assembly including wires 48, 50, 523, 54, 56 inherently connects battery and switch and charger plug Para 0028).
Brown does not explicitly disclose the vibration zones configured to be turned on or controlled individually.
Roh discloses a shoe with various zones having vibration motors where a controller individually controls the motors in relation to a pressure sensed at each location (Col 12, lines 24-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to individually control or turn on and off the motors in Brown. All the claimed elements in Brown and Roh were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the controller for individually activating each motor as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result providing customized vibration in response to specific pressure sensed at each zone or location of the foot to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 46, Brown discloses in Figures 1-7, the article of footwear of claim 45, wherein the three vibration zones comprise a front vibration zone having at least one vibrating motor 38 of the plurality of vibrating motors disposed in a forefoot region of the sole.
Regarding Claim 47, Brown discloses in Figure 1, the article of footwear of claim 45, wherein the three vibration zones comprise a middle vibration zone having at least two vibrating motors 40, 42 of the plurality of vibrating motors disposed in a midfoot region of the sole.
Regarding Claim 48, Brown discloses in Figure 1, the article of footwear of claim 45, wherein the three vibration zones comprise a back vibration zone having at least two vibrating motors 44, 46 of the plurality of vibrating motors disposed in a rearfoot region of the sole.
Regarding Claim 49, Brown discloses in Figures 1 and 5, the article of footwear of claim 45, wherein the plurality of vibrating motors 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46 is at least partially embedded within the sole.
Regarding Claim 50, Brown discloses in Figures 1 and 5, the article of footwear of claim 45, further comprising a mounting layer 22 coupled to the sole, wherein the mounting layer comprises a plurality of pockets, and wherein each of the plurality of vibrating motors 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46 is disposed in one of the plurality of pockets (Par 0028).
Regarding Claim 51, Brown does not disclose a top surface of the sole defines one or more cavities configured to receive the plurality of vibrating motors.
Roh discloses in Figure 2-3, a sole (outsole 11, midsole 12, insole 13) with cavities having a surface with cavities accommodating motors or vibrators 133.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form cavities in a top surface of the sole to accommodate the motors 40,42,44,46. All the claimed elements in Brown and Roh were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the cavities with the sole as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result securing the vibrating motors to a sole corresponding to the zone to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 51, Brown discloses that the invention relates to all types of footwear (para 0003 including a slide or slipper) but does not disclose a strap coupled to the sole, the strap extending from a lateral side of the sole to a medial side of the sole such that an area between the strap and the sole is configured to receive a wearer's foot.
In this case, selecting a given style of footwear having strap extending between the lateral sides for would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22,26-30,33,36-37 and 40-42 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art Brown (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0096203) and Roh (U.S. Patent No. 11,872,013) does not teach or suggest alone or combination wherein the protective housing is coupled to the mounting layer, wherein the battery is configured to power the motors, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the motors, and wherein the control assembly is disposed between the mounting layer and the sole; and a switch coupled to the control circuitry and configured to turn the motors on and off.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 45 and 51 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights