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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 16 January 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campos US 20210145119 in view of Litchfield US 20100251565.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Campos discloses a sole structure (Figs. 1-8 #100) for an article of footwear (Figs. 1-8 #10), the sole structure comprising: a bladder assembly (Figs. 1-8 #106) including a first fluid-filled chamber (Figs. 1-8 #130) spaced apart from (Figs. 1-8 #138) a second fluid-filled chamber (Figs. 1-8 #140); and a chassis (Figs. 1-8 #172/174) including a plate (Figs. 1-8 #172) extending from (Campos Annot. Fig 2) an anterior end of the sole structure (Campos Annot. Fig 2) to a posterior end of the sole structure (Campos Annot. Fig 2) and having a first portion (Figs. 1-8 #168) in contact with (¶0084) the first fluid-filled chamber (Figs. 1-8), a second portion (Figs. 1-8 # 168a-e) in contact with (Figs. 1-8 via contact with chassis part #174; ¶0084) the second fluid-filled chamber (Figs. 1-8), and a third portion (Figs. 1-8 shows the remainder of the plate #172) extending between (Figs. 1-6) and connecting (Figs. 1-6) the first portion and the second portion (Figs. 1-6), the plate including a plurality of peripheral grooves (Figs. 1-8 #166) defined along a bottom surface of the plate (Figs. 1-8 #164) in a forefoot region (Fig. 1-8 #12/14) and a heel region (Figs. 1-8 #16), the second fluid-filled chamber disposed in a second peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the heel region (Figs. 1-8 rearfoot; ¶0083).
Campos does not expressly disclose the first fluid-filled chamber disposed in a first peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the forefoot region.
Litchfield teaches a footwear (Figs. 1-16 #100) with a first fluid-filled chamber (Fig. 1 #105) disposed in a first peripheral groove (Fig. 6 #610) of the plurality of peripheral grooves (Figs. 1-16 #600/605/610) in the forefoot region (Figs. 1-6; ¶0078).
Both Campos and Litchfield teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with fluid-fluid. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Campos with the teachings of Litchfield such that the first fluid-filled chamber disposed in a first peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the forefoot region in order to decrease the overall profile of the fluid-filled chamber along the outsole of the shoe as the fluid-filled bladder will be hidden partially by the midsole.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 1, wherein the third portion spans a gap (Figs. 1-6) separating the first fluid-filled chamber from the second fluid-filled chamber (Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 2, wherein the chassis includes a first wing (Figs. 1-6 #176 right) extending from the gap in a direction away from (Figs. 1-8; ¶0088) a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #104).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 3, wherein the chassis includes a second wing (Figs. 1-6 #176 left) extending from the gap in a direction away from (Figs. 1-8; ¶0088) a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #104).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 4, wherein the first wing extends from a lateral side of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #24), and the second wing extends from the medial side of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #22).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 1, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber includes a central region (Fig. 4 #122) defining an interior void (Fig. 4 #136) receiving a fluid (¶0062), the second portion of the plate including an aperture (Fig. 6 #118) that receives the central region therein (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 6, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is disposed in the heel region of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the plate includes a medial leg (Fig. 5 #172 left) and a lateral leg (Fig. 5 #172 right) spaced apart from the medial leg across a width of the second portion (Fig. 5 shows the space between the left and right side above #126).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 8, wherein the medial leg and the lateral leg extend onto the second fluid-filled chamber in a direction away from the heel region of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 show the legs extending away from the heel region in all directions).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses an article of footwear (Fig. 1 #10) incorporating the sole structure of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Campos discloses a sole structure (Figs. 1-8 #100) for an article of footwear (Figs. 1-8 #10), the sole structure comprising: an outsole (Figs. 1-8 #104) defining a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (Figs. 1-8 #30); a chassis (Figs. 1-8 #172/174) spaced apart from the outsole (Figs. 1-6) to define a void therebetween (Figs. 1-6 show the void with bladder #106 in place), the chassis including a plate (Figs. 1-8 #172) extending from (Campos Annot. Fig 2) an anterior end of the sole structure (Campos Annot. Fig 2) to a posterior end of the sole structure (Campos Annot. Fig 2) and having a first portion (Figs. 1-8 #168), a second portion (Figs. 1-8 # 168a-e), and a third portion (Figs. 1-8 shows the remainder of the plate #172) extending between (Figs. 1-6) and connecting (Figs. 1-6) the first portion and the second portion (Figs. 1-6), the plate including a plurality of peripheral grooves (Figs. 1-8 #166) defined along a bottom surface of the plate (Figs. 1-8 #164) in a forefoot region (Fig. 1-8 #12/14) and a second peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves (Fig. 6 #166) defined along the bottom surface of the plate in the heel region (Figs. 1-8 #16); and a bladder assembly (Figs. 1-8 #106) disposed within the void (Figs. 1-6), the bladder assembly including a second fluid-filled chamber (Figs. 1-8 #140) disposed in the second peripheral groove (Fig. 6) and spaced apart from (Figs. 1-8) the first fluid-filled chamber by a gap (Figs. 1-8; ¶0088).
Campos does not expressly disclose a first fluid-filled chamber disposed in a first peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the forefoot region.
Litchfield teaches a footwear (Figs. 1-16 #100) with a first fluid-filled chamber (Fig. 1 #105) disposed in a first peripheral groove (Fig. 6 #610) of the plurality of peripheral grooves (Figs. 1-16 #600/605/610) in the forefoot region (Figs. 1-6; ¶0078).
Both Campos and Litchfield teach analogous inventions in the art of footwear with fluid-fluid. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Campos with the teachings of Litchfield such that the first fluid-filled chamber disposed in a first peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the forefoot region in order to decrease the overall profile of the fluid-filled chamber along the outsole of the shoe as the fluid-filled bladder will be hidden partially by the midsole.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 11, wherein the third portion of the plate spans the gap (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 11, wherein the chassis includes a first wing (Figs. 1-6 #176 right) extending from the gap in a direction away from (Figs. 1-8; ¶0088) a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #104).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 13, wherein the chassis includes a second wing (Figs. 1-6 #176 left) extending from the gap in a direction away from (Figs. 1-8; ¶0088) a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #104).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 14, wherein the first wing extends from a lateral side of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #24), and the second wing extends from the medial side of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 #22).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 11, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber includes a central region (Fig. 4 #122) defining an interior void (Fig. 4 #136) receiving a fluid (¶0062), the second portion of the plate including an aperture (Fig. 6 #118) that receives the central region therein (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 16, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is disposed in the heel region of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 11, wherein the second portion of the plate includes a medial leg (Fig. 5 #172 left) and a lateral leg (Fig. 5 #172 right) spaced apart from the medial leg across a width of the second portion (Fig. 5 shows the space between the left and right side above #126).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses the sole structure of claim 18, wherein the medial leg and the lateral leg extend onto the second fluid-filled chamber in a direction away from the heel region of the sole structure (Figs. 1-6 show the legs extending away from the heel region in all directions).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified sole structure of Campos discloses an article of footwear (Fig. 1 #10) incorporating the sole structure of Claim 12 (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1140
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 of claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues:
The prior art does not teach, “a plate extending from an anterior end of a sole structure to a posterior end of the sole structure and including a plurality of peripheral grooves defined along a bottom surface of the plate in a forefoot region and a heel region, the first fluid-filled chamber disposed in a first peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the forefoot region and the second fluid-filled chamber disposed in a second peripheral groove of the plurality of peripheral grooves in the heel region,” (Remarks Pg. 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Campos shows the plate extending from an anterior end to a posterior end of the sole in Fig. 2. Campos shows peripheral grooves in Figs. 2 & 5-6, as noted by the curved structure of the plate along the bottom exterior surface, where the bladder meets. The Examiner notes that the word “portion” is very broad and does not denote a specific structure, thus can be reasonably interpreted to include the structures of Campos. In a previous interview (See Interview Summary of 05 June 2025) the Examiner suggested amending the claims to more clearly define the shape of the grooves in the forefoot plate, the bladder assembly being in the forefoot and the heel, and defining the arcuate grooves in the forefoot extending transverse from lateral to medial along the bottom surface of the plate. Thus far, no claim amendments have addressed these suggestions. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
“While Litchfield does disclose cavities (600), (610) along a bottom surface (215), the cavities (600), (610) are large, centrally bounded recesses formed in the midsole bottom surface (215) to partially house portions of a separate resilient insert. The cavities (600), (610) are not grooves, let alone peripheral grooves formed along a bottom surface of a plate. Rather, the cavities are centrally located voids surrounded by midsole material. Even if the cavities (600), (610) could be asserted as being grooves, which Applicant does not admit, the cavities (600), (610) are completely surrounded by the bottom surface (215). See Figure 6 of Litchfield (reproduced above). Accordingly, the cavities (600), (610) cannot be peripheral relative to the midsole (120). Instead, the cavities (600), (610) are centrally disposed within the bottom surface (215),” (Remarks Pg. 10)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A “cavity” can reasonably be considered a “groove” as both are hollow channels, indentions, cuts, and gouges in objects. The prior art of Litchfield does show peripheral grooves in Fig. 6 at #600/605/610. These grooves do not compose an exterior peripheral edge of the sole, but as seen in Fig. 8, the grooves are along a peripheral wall of the sole and thus could reasonably be considered peripheral grooves. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claims 1 and 11; however, as discussed in the rejection below and in the arguments above, claims 1 and 11 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights