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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims 1-20, filed 14 August 2025, which are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-7 are black and white photographs. Black and white photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications unless there is no other practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Based on the photographs shown in Figures 1-7, which are already black and white, the claimed invention of this application is capable of being shown as a series of drawings. It is also noted that dark shading within the drawings is not acceptable. Each claimed aspect of the invention must be clear, visible, and appropriately marked within the drawings for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(2).
Photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
Photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “80” has been used to designate both “heel strap” and “elastic heel strap”.
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 following structures from the claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1: “wherein the posterior heel wall is removed from the heel strap and is laid against the insole when the heel cup is in the folded position”
Claim 7: “upper rim of the midsole”
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the heel strap is and elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity” which is not found in the Specification. The Specification ¶0041 supports “the elastic strap 82 is defined by 50% or more elasticity” but does not mention the heel strap nor an elastic heel strap specifically have 50% or more elasticity.
Claim 7 recites, “an upper rim of the midsole” which is not found in the Specification. ¶0026 states, “As best illustrated in FIG. 6, the midsole 18 includes a first, upper- or foot- facing side 14 (which may also be referred to as a “top side”) and a second, ground-facing side 16 (which may also be referred to as a “bottom side”). The top side 14 may possess a generally smooth and planum surface 28 that is surrounded by a gently curved rim or perimeter wall that defines an upper perimeter 26 for the sole structure 12”, but does not mention an “upper rim of the midsole”, only a top side smooth/planum surface surrounded by a rim the defines an upper perimeter for the sole structure, not the midsole itself.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 should recite, “an article of footwear including a heel region, a midfoot region, and a forefoot region,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 12, and 14-15 (and claim(s) 2, 5-7, 13 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “the upper comprising a heel cup defining a posterior heel wall and a heel strap that extends around an exterior surface of the posterior heel wall”. It is unclear if the heel cup defines both the heel wall and the heel strap. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “the upper comprising: a heel cup defining a posterior heel wall, and a heel strap that extends around an exterior surface of the posterior heel wall”.
Claim 3 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the heel strap is moveable between a first position wherein the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear and a second position wherein the strap crest is below the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear”. It is unclear if the heel strap is moveable between the first position, the lateral ends, the medial ends, and the second position, or any combination of these. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the heel strap is moveable between a first position and a second position; wherein when in the first position the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear, and [[a]] wherein when in the second position
Claims 4 and 15 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the heel strap is and elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity”. It is unclear if the heel strap is defining the elastic heel strap, if the heel strap is defined by at least 50% elasticity, the elastic heel strap is defined by at least 50% elasticity, or if both the heel strap and the elastic heel strap are defined by at least 50% elasticity. The Specification ¶0041 supports “the heel strap 80 is provided by one or more elastic straps 82” and the “elastic strap 82 is defined by 50% or more elasticity” but does not mention a heel strap nor an elastic heel strap specifically have 50% or more elasticity. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the heel strap is an[[d]] elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity”.
Claim 12 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the heel strap includes a medial end connected to the medial seam and a lateral end connected to the lateral seam”. There is a lack of antecedence in the claims for “the heel strap” as there is no “a heel strap” previously recited, only “an at least one strap” therefore it is unclear if “the heel strap” is the same as the “at least one strap” or a new/different structure. Further, it is unclear if “a medial end” and “a lateral end” are the same or different structures than the previously recited “ends of the at least one strap” of claim 9, from which claim 12 depends. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the ends of the at least one
Claim 14 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the heel strap is moveable between a first position wherein the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap and a second position wherein the strap crest is below the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap”. It is unclear if the heel strap is moveable between the first position, the lateral ends, the medial ends, and the second position, or any combination of these. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the heel strap is moveable between a first position and a second position; wherein when in the first position the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap, and [[a]] wherein when in the second position
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) 1-3, 5, 7, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 20210282495 in view of Dillenbeck US 20110271556.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Davis discloses an article of footwear (Figs. 1-2 & 8-12 #210) including a heel region (Figs. 1-2 #24), a midfoot region (Figs. 1-2 #22) and a forefoot region (Figs. 1-2 #24), the article of footwear comprising: a sole (Figs. 8-12 #212); an upper connected to the sole (Figs. 8-12 #214), the upper and the sole forming a foot cavity (Figs. 8-12 #218 and interior of shoe), the upper comprising a heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #250) defining a posterior heel wall (Fig. 9 shows the wall-shaped #250) and a heel strap (Figs. 8-12 #254) that extends around (Figs. 8-12) an exterior surface of the posterior heel wall (Figs. 8-12); and an insole (¶0036) positioned within the foot cavity (¶0036); wherein the heel cup is configured to be moved between an upright position and a folded position (Figs. 8-12), wherein the exterior surface of the posterior heel wall is adjacent to the heel strap when the heel cup is in the upright position (Figs. 8-11), and wherein the posterior heel wall is removed from the heel strap (Figs. 8-12), but does not expressly disclose that the heel cup is laid against the insole when the heel cup is in the folded position.
Dillenbeck teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6 #10) with an adjustable heel cup (Figs. 1-6 #18) that is laid against an insole (Figs. 1-6 #84) when the heel cup is in a folded position (Figs. 1-6).
Both Davis and Dillenbeck teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis with the teachings of Dillenbeck such that the heel cup folds inward and lays against the insole so that the heel cup, “provides support and comfort to a user's heel when the heel portion is folded downward to form a mule-type shoe,” (Dillenbeck ¶0013).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 wherein the heel strap includes a strap crest (Figs. 8-12 #254c) that is higher than a lateral end (Figs. 8-12 #254a lateral side #30; ¶0057) and a medial end of the heel strap (Figs. 8-12 #254a medial side #28; ¶0057).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 2 wherein the heel strap is moveable between a first position (Fig. 8) wherein the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear (Fig. 8) and a second position (Fig. 12) wherein the strap crest is below the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 wherein a medial seam (Figs. 8-12 #236 medial; ¶0054 notes this as a “collar”) separates a midfoot portion of the upper (Fig. 9) from the heel cup on a medial side of the article of footwear (Figs. 8-12 medial), and wherein a lateral seam (Figs. 8-12 #236 medial; ¶0054 notes this as a “collar”) separates the midfoot portion of the upper from the heel cup on a lateral side (Figs. 8-12 lateral).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 5 wherein the sole includes a midsole (Figs. 1-2 #32), wherein a lower perimeter of the heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #251) is non-removably connected to (Figs. 8-12 #252) the article of footwear (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) along an upper rim of the midsole (Figs. 8-12 show the hinge connected to the upper rim which is attached to the midsole top surface), wherein a lateral side of the heel cup (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) is non-removably connected to the lateral seam (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058), and wherein a medial side of the heel cup (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) is non-removably connected to the medial seam (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Davis discloses a method of donning an article of footwear (Figs. 1-2 & 8-12 #210) comprising: inserting a foot of a wearer into a foot cavity of the article of footwear (Abstract, ¶0003-0004) with a foldable heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #250) in an upright configuration (Fig. 8) and a heel strap (Figs. 8-12 #254) extending around an exterior surface of the foldable heel cup (Figs. 8-11); removing the foot from the foot cavity (¶0018); moving the foldable heel cup to a folded position (Fig. 12; ¶0018, 0054-0055); and inserting the foot of the wearer into the foot cavity of the article of footwear with the foldable heel cup in a folded position (¶0018, 0054-0055), but does not expressly disclose a heel of the foot of the wearer on top of the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup.
Dillenbeck teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6 #10) with an adjustable heel cup (Figs. 1-6 #18) where a heel of the foot of the wearer (Fig. 6) on top of the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup (Figs. 5-6).
Both Davis and Dillenbeck teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis with the teachings of Dillenbeck such that a heel of the foot of the wearer on top of the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup so that the heel cup, “provides support and comfort to a user's heel when the heel portion is folded downward to form a mule-type shoe,” (Dillenbeck ¶0013).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 16 wherein inserting the foot into the foot cavity with the foldable heel cup in the folded position comprises inserting the foot into an opening between the heel strap and a dorsum of the article of footwear such that the heel of the foot is on top of the heel strap (Davis ¶0055-0064; Dillenbeck Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 17 further comprising pulling the heel strap from under the heel and positioning a strap crest of the heel strap around an Achilles tendon of the wearer (Fig. 8 would have the heel strap #254 around the Achilles tendon of a wearer when the heel strap is up, as shown).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap (¶0056).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 16 wherein inserting the foot into the foot cavity with the foldable heel cup in the folded position comprises inserting the foot into an opening between the heel strap and a sole of the article of footwear such that the heel strap is positioned above a dorsum of the foot of the wearer (Davis ¶0055-0064; Dillenbeck Figs. 5-6).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Dillenbeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Granek US 3482337.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 wherein the heel strap is and elastic heel strap has elasticity (¶0053, 0064), but does not expressly disclose that the elasticity is defined by at least 50% elasticity.
Granek teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6) with elastic straps (Figs. 1-2 #13/28) that have at least 50% elasticity (Col. 3:63-72).
Both Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) and Granek teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) with the teachings of Granek such that the elastic heel strap would have at least 50% elasticity in order to produce a shoe that, “readily and easily conforms to the foot of the wearer to minimize abrasion and obviate an important cause of calluses and blisters. Moreover, the improved sandal is highly attractive, rugged, long wearing, highly comfortable and of low cost,” (Granek Col. 2:32-40).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Dillenbeck as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wilson US 20030200679.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose wherein a reinforced cord structure extends along the medial seam and the lateral seam.
Wilson teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-5 #100) wherein a reinforced cord structure (Figs. 1-5 #62/66/70/72/82; ¶0020) extends along a medial seam and a lateral seam (Figs. 1-5 #72/70, respectively).
Both Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) and Wilson teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) with the teachings of Wilson such that there would be a reinforced cord structure extending along the medial and lateral seams in order to give the shoe seams additional abrasion resistance.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield US 5377430 in view of Dillenbeck.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Hatfield discloses an article of footwear (Figs. 1-9) comprising: a sole (Figs. 1-9); a midfoot portion (Figs. 1-9 #90) connected to the sole (Figs. 1-9), the midfoot portion including a medial side (Figs. 1-9 #90 medial) and a lateral side (Figs. 1-9 #90 lateral); a heel cup (Figs. 1-9 show the heel cup underneath strap #84 at the rear of the shoe) connected to the sole and the midfoot portion (Figs. 1-9), the heel cup having an upright position (Figs. 1-9); and at least one strap (Figs. 1-9 #84) extending around an exterior surface of the heel cup (Figs. 1-9).
Hatfield does not expressly disclose the heel cup being moveable between the upright position (Fig. 8) and a folded position.
Dillenbeck teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6 #10) with an adjustable heel cup (Figs. 1-6 #18) that is the heel cup moveable between an upright position (Figs. 1-6) and a folded position (Figs. 1-6).
Both Hatfield and Dillenbeck teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Hatfield with the teachings of Dillenbeck such that the heel cup would be capable of folding into a folded position, “provides support and comfort to a user's heel when the heel portion is folded downward to form a mule-type shoe,” (Dillenbeck ¶0013). Further, the heel cup of Hatfield is not attached to the strap #84 nor the lateral and medial side straps #72, and the heel cup of Figs. 1-9 does not claim to contain a rigid structure within the heel cup itself, therefore it would not be unreasonable for the heel cup to cave inward towards the sole when a foot is introduced into the shoe, nor would it be unreasonable for the heel cup of Hatfield to be modified with the heel cup of Dillenbeck so that the heel cup intentionally caved inward towards the sole so that the user could wear the shoe as a sandal.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified article of footwear of Hatfield discloses the article of footwear of claim 8 wherein a medial seam (Col. 4:31-40) is provided between the medial side of the midfoot portion and the heel cup (Figs. 1-9), wherein a lateral seam (Col. 4:31-40) is provided between the lateral side of the midfoot portion and the heel cup (Figs. 1-9), and wherein ends of the at least one strap (Col. 4:31-40) are connected to the medial seam and the lateral seam (Col. 4:31-40).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified article of footwear of Hatfield discloses the article of footwear of claim 9 wherein the heel strap includes a medial end (Col. 4:31-40) connected to the medial seam (Col. 4:31-40) and a lateral end (Col. 4:31-40) connected to the lateral seam (Col. 4:31-40).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified article of footwear of Hatfield discloses the article of footwear of claim 12 a strap crest (Fig. 4 #84 top most edge of the curve of the strap at midline of heel cup) that is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 13 wherein the heel strap is moveable between a first position (Figs. 1-9) wherein the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap (Fig. 4) and a second position (Col. 4:31-40) wherein the strap crest is below the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap (Col. 4:31-40).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claims 8-9 above, and further in view of Wilson.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 9 but does not expressly disclose wherein a reinforced cord structure extends along the medial seam and the lateral seam.
Wilson teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-5 #100) wherein a reinforced cord structure (Figs. 1-5 #62/66/70/72/82; ¶0020) extends along a medial seam and a lateral seam (Figs. 1-5 #72/70, respectively).
Both Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) and Wilson teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) with the teachings of Wilson such that there would be a reinforced cord structure extending along the medial and lateral seams in order to give the shoe seams additional abrasion resistance.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 10 wherein the reinforced cord structure further extends across a dorsum of the article of footwear (Wilson Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Dillenbeck as applied to claims 8-9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Granek.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 14 wherein the heel strap is and elastic heel strap has elasticity (¶0053, 0064), but does not expressly disclose that the elasticity is defined by at least 50% elasticity.
Granek teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6) with elastic straps (Figs. 1-2 #13/28) that have at least 50% elasticity (Col. 3:63-72).
Both Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) and Granek teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) with the teachings of Granek such that the elastic heel strap would have at least 50% elasticity in order to produce a shoe that, “readily and easily conforms to the foot of the wearer to minimize abrasion and obviate an important cause of calluses and blisters. Moreover, the improved sandal is highly attractive, rugged, long wearing, highly comfortable and of low cost,” (Granek Col. 2:32-40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Campbell US 9226543 teaches a modular shoe
Van Doren US 4783909 teaches a folding heel shoe
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732