Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/300,567

ANTI-FATIGUE SHOE APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Priority
Mar 03, 2023 — provisional 63/449,661 +1 more
Examiner
BAYS, MARIE D
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Decker Branch LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
1292 granted / 1735 resolved
+4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1757
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.2%
+17.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1735 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-9 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurd (2020/0375307). Hurd shows A sole assembly for a footwear, the sole assembly comprising: an outsole (34/34a) defining a top outsole surface and a bottom outsole surface opposite to the top outsole surface, the bottom outsole surface adapted to contact ground; a midsole (32/32a) to reduce a torque or a torsional movement between a front of the sole assembly and a rear of the sole assembly, the midsole defining a top midsole surface and a bottom midsole surface opposite to the top midsole surface, the bottom midsole surface in contact with the top outsole surface, the top midsole surface including a midsole toc section and a midsole heel section opposite to the midsole toe section, the midsole including: a midsole toe cavity (54/54a) extending from the midsole toe section of the top midsole surface into a midsole body of the midsole; a midsole heel cavity (54/54a) extending from the midsole heel section of the top midsole surface into the midsole body of the midsole; and an insole (38 or 38 and 70a) and including a top insole surface and a bottom insole surface disposed opposite to the top insole surface, the bottom insole surface being in contact with the top midsole surface, wherein a toe comfort zone (see figures 6 and 12) is defined within the midsole toe cavity, the toe comfort zone is delimited by a first midsole surface of the midsole and a first insole surface of the insole, and a heel comfort zone (see figures 6 and 12) is defined within the midsole heel cavity, the heel comfort zone is delimited by a second midsole surface of the midsole and a second insole surface of the insole as claimed. In reference to claims 2 and 12, see paragraph [0005]. In reference to claims 3 and 13 see paragraph [0104]. In reference to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q. 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3 (CCPA 1976). The layers of Hurd are considered to be integrally formed. In reference to claims 6 and 16, Hurd shows liners (64a, figure 12). In reference to claims 7, 8, and 17, see element 64a which can be considered a liner and/or a reinforcing spray on material and paragraph [0094]. In reference to claims 9 and 18, Hurd shows pods (36). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is allowed. Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05. 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. In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet. Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425. /MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677905
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR HAVING A SOLE STRUCTURE
1y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12660881
PLATE WITH FOAM FOR FOOTWEAR
1y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653276
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR COMPRISING MOTORIZED TENSIONING DEVICE WITH SPLIT SPOOL SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12642331
ARTICLE WITH RIBBON STRUCTURE
1y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12635766
SHOE INSERT HAVING A FOOT PATH DIRECTOR
1y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+19.7%)
2y 4m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1735 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month