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 § 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 4, 6, 10, and 15 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.
In claim 4 the phrases “a forefoot region of the cushioning element”, “adapted to receive a medial portion of a foot”, and “adapted to receive a central portion of a foot” are confusing, vague, and indefinite because they attempt to define a cushioning element in reference to a foot which is an undefined and unclaimed element. Also, the cushioning element has only been defined as a generic element, and has not defined the element to have any specific regions or other details.
In claim 6 the phrase “the origin of the grid structure” lacks proper antecedent basis rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 10 attempts to define the cushion element in reference to a sole plate which is undefined and unclaimed rendering the claim vague and indefinite. Also it is not clear what limitations applicant intends to encompass with the phrase “is based on…”.
In claim 15 the phrase “is based on a …” is confusing, vague, and indefinite because it is not clear what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language. Also, the phrases “a diameter of the first cavity” and “a diameter of the sole plate” lack antecedent basis in that the cavity and sole plate have not been defined as having shapes with a diameter and it is not clear what structures applicant intends to encompass or is referring to.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lucca (2019/0029364).
Lucca shows A cushioning element (50) adapted to be arranged at a sole plate of a shoe, comprising a grid structure (see figures 1, 10, and 12, and paragraph [0037]), wherein the grid structure is arranged in a spiral pattern (see paragraph [0037]) as claimed.
In reference to claims 2-12, see figures 1, 10, 12, and paragraph [0037] which show spiral grid comprising a first forefoot element (shown in area c of figure 1) and a second heel element (shown in area B of figure 1) and an aperture (shown at P) which is shown as oval at the “origin” shaped and arranged as claimed inasmuch as the claims are defined and understood. It is noted that the claims are very broad and the structure shown by Lucca shows such inasmuch as applicant has claimed such.
In reference to claim 13, Luccas shows a sole plate (27) with a first cavity (48) with the cushion (50) therein.
In reference to claims 14-18, the cavity (48) is shown in both the forefoot and heel areas of the footwear and is shown as open to the top. In reference to claim 15, the shape of the cavity is based on the sole plate inasmuch as this phrase is understood and defined. In reference to claim 17, the heel grid is shown and described as a spiral (see above).
In reference to claim 19, the grid is shown as being “integral” with the sole plate in that they are secured to one another as a sole inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such.
In reference to claim 20, see figure 1 and paragraph [0001] which shows a shoe sole for shoe construction.
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
Prosecution Insights