Mule

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 . Foreign Priority The claim to priority to EM Applications Nos. 015097924-0012, 015097924-0021, 015097924-0023, 015097924-0030, 015097924-0037 filed with the European Union Intellectual Property Office on 04 April 2025 are acknowledged. However, conditions for foreign priority have not been met due to the lack of certified copies of the required documents. Comment The response and election received 23 September 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant requested the cancellation of Embodiments 2-5 with corresponding figure 2.1 through 5.7 views and provided an amended specification reflecting this cancellation. However, applicant has not provided new drawings reflecting the cancellation of Embodiments 2-5 with corresponding figures 2.1 through 5.7. The correction of inventorship received 23 September 2026 is acknowledged. The changes to the specification are acknowledged. Comment Regarding the Restriction and Election Embodiments 2-5 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Applicants’ election of Embodiment 1 in response to the restriction requirement is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Drawing Objection As set forth in MPEP 1503.02, Ex parte Asano, 201 USPQ 315, 317 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1978); Hadco Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America Inc., 312 F. Supp. 1173, 1182, 165 USPQ 496, 503 (E.D. Pa. 1970), vacated on other grounds, 462 F.2d 1265, 174 USPQ 358 (3d Cir. 1972) the drawings are objected due to the non-elected figures not being canceled by the applicant. Since an election was made, the non-elected Figures 2.1 through 5.7 have been cancelled by the applicant but a new drawing set was not provided with the remaining views. A new drawing set is required. 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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. The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by earlier EM Design Registration No. 015097924-0012, dated 04 April 2025 because 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, dated 01 October 2025. The appearance of the footwear of EM Design Registration No. 015097924-0012, dated 04 April 2025 is substantially the same as that of the claimed design, dated 01 October 2025. The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Without the properly attached foreign priority documents with a shared inventor name, the following reference stands as conflicting prior art. A comparison of the claimed design and the previous registration is below: PNG media_image1.png 223 320 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 789 1399 media_image2.png Greyscale Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other. Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F3d.1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,’ so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation. Int'l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243 (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Conclusion The references are cited as cumulative art but are not applied other than as noted above. Accordingly, the claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as set forth above. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christen P. Brown-Lorrig whose telephone number is (571)272-2986. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm. 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, Michelle Wilson, can be reached at (571) 272-7639. 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. /CHRISTEN PILAR BROWN-LORRIG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2912