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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2478664 (Morrow).
Regarding claims 12 and 13; Morrow discloses an article of footwear (e.g. see article of footwear (sandal) in figures 1-4), comprising:
a body (sole (S)) at least partially defining a foot-receiving cavity (sole (S) forms the lower boundary of the foot receiving space beneath the straps (T,T1)), wherein the body comprises a plurality of individual segments that are coupled together (16-26), wherein a first segment (rearward-facing transverse surface of section 22) of the plurality of segments includes a posterior face extending in a superior/inferior direction and in a medial/lateral direction, wherein a second segment (forward-facing transverse surface of section 21) of the plurality of segments includes an anterior face extending in the superior/inferior direction and in the medial/lateral direction, wherein the first segment is positioned anterior to the second segment in an anterior/posterior direction (see figures 1-4), wherein each of the plurality of segments includes at least one opening (bores 28 within the sole sections) positioned inferior to the foot-receiving cavity in the superior/inferior direction; and
a connection member (spring 27 passes through the bores and across the sections and is anchored by brands 29) disposed within the at least one opening of the first segment and within the at least one opening of the second segment and extending from the first segment to the second segment in the anterior/posterior direction, wherein the connection member couples the plurality of segments together (at least see figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, at least see figures 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 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow ‘664 in view of US 2015/0223560 (Wawrousek).
Morrow discloses an article of footwear as claimed except for the sole body comprises a printable material, wherein the printable material comprises thermoplastic material. However, the sole body (S) is made out of plastic (see col. 1, lines 51-53).
Wawrousek teaches an article of footwear wherein the sole and sole elements may be manufactured by three-dimensional printing or additive manufacturing, wherein the printable material comprises thermoplastic material; at least see ¶0066,0067.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastic sole body (sections) as taught by Morrow to be made out of a printable material, wherein the printable material comprises thermoplastic material, in view of the teachings of Wawrousek, in order to permit manufacturing of sections customized to the wearer’s foot contour and support needs, while retaining Morrow’s bores and spring connections.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow ‘664 in view of US 2015/0223560 (Wawrousek).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-9, Morrow discloses an article of footwear (e.g. see article of footwear (sandal) in figures 1-4), comprising:
a body (sole (S) which includes sections 16-26) having a longitudinal axis extending from a forefoot region of the body to a heel region of the body, wherein the body comprises a plurality of discrete segments that are coupled together (16-26), wherein a first segment of the plurality of segments defines the forefoot region (one or more of the sections of the sole in the forefoot region) and a second segment of the plurality of segments defines the heel region (one or more of the sections of the sole in the heel region), wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes an opening (bores 28 within the sole sections) extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis; and
a connection member (spring 27 passes through the bores and across the sections and is anchored by brands 29) disposed within the openings of the segments from the first segment to the second segment, wherein the connection member couples the plurality of segments together (at least see figures 1-4).
Morrow lacks teaching the body being a three-dimensionally printed body.
Wawrousek teaches an article of footwear wherein the sole and sole elements may be manufactured by three-dimensional printing or additive manufacturing, wherein the printable material comprises thermoplastic material; at least see ¶0066,0067.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastic sole body (sections) as taught by Morrow to be made out of a three-dimensionally printed material, in view of the teachings of Wawrousek, in order to permit manufacturing of sections customized to the wearer’s foot contour and support needs, while retaining Morrow’s bores and spring connections.
Regarding claim 2, see one or more of the middle sections (e.g. 18,19) of Morrow.
Regarding claim 3, at least figure 1 of Morrow.
Regarding claim 6, Morrow’s springs and end anchors mechanically couple the section without adhesive.
Regarding claim 7, Morrow’s sole and attached instep/toe straps provide the sole and upper structure.
Regarding claim 8, Morrow’s heel (14) satisfies the outsole limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Morrow teaches the seams between adjacent sole sections (i.e. the joints between adjacent sole sections); and the heel (14) extends beneath and across the joints between the heel sections; and with regard to coupling the segments, see nails 15 which secure heel 14 to the sections, thereby connecting them through the heel.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference(s) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2019/0350304 (Velazquez).
Velazquez teaches a sandal comprising outsole portions that are spaced apart from each other (see the second half of ¶0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of footwear as taught by the combination about to include a second outsole portion such as in the forefoot portion of the footwear so that there is an outsole (heel 14 of Morrow) in the heel portion and another second outsole portion in the forefoot portion, as taught by Velazquez, to provide additional durability and traction for the user. As like the heel (14) which extend over multiple seam segments, the outsole in the forefoot would also extend over multiple seam segments of the plurality of sections in the forefoot area of the sole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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. See ¶0074 for reasons to allow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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.
When amending the claims applicant should also take in consideration the following references: US 2007/0251126 (Tvoua) which could have also been applied to claim 12 as a 35 USC 102 rejection. With regard to claim 1 and 15, Tvoua in view of Wawrousek could have been rejected under a 35 USC 103 rejection similar to Morrow in view of Wawrousek above.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, 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 57-1272-4888. 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.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556
Prosecution Insights