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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 10/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-18, and 20 are presented.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claim 8 is amended.
The present Office action treats Claims 1-4, 6, 8-18, and 20 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks of 10/31/2025 (see p. 7-12 of the reply) are acknowledged.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (p. 7): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s amendment to claim 8 overcomes the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 8 as applied in the previous office action.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (p. 7-10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 10-12): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fallon, US 2007/0084081, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 07/02/2024] in view of [Baker, 2010/0186261, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Fallon discloses (Fig. 9):
A sole structure 30’ (i.e. “sole structure 30’”; para 45) for an article of footwear 10’ (i.e. “footwear 10’”; para 45) having an upper 20’ (i.e. “upper 20’”; para 45) and defining a forefoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below), a midfoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below), and a heel region (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below), the sole structure comprising:
a first plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below) extending from the forefoot region, through the midfoot region, to the heel region (as in annotated Fig. 9 – a below), the first plate being configured to couple to the upper (Fig. 9; para 45);
a second plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below) that is spaced from the first plate by a first gap (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below), the second plate being disposed within the forefoot region (as in annotated Fig. 9 – a below); a beam (see annotated Fig. 9 – a below) extending between the first plate and the second plate so that the first plate is pivotably coupled to the second plate by the beam (“Pivot element...in the forefoot region”; para 45), the beam extending along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure (as in annotated Fig. 9 – a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fallon Fig. 9 does not expressly disclose the beam extending along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure so that the beam is positioned on both a lateral side and a medial side of the sole structure.
However, and in further view of Fallon:
Fallon as embodied in para 29 and Figs. 4A-4D teaches a beam 43 (i.e. “coupling 43”; para 29) extending between plates 41 and 42 (i.e. between “upper support 41” and “lower support 42”; para 29) wherein said beam is positioned on both a lateral side and a medial side of the sole structure (Figs. 4A-4D; beam “43 is spaced inward from each of lateral side 14, medial side 15...coupling 43 is positioned at an approximate center between lateral side 14 and medial side 15”; para 29).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Fallon such that the beam is positioned on both a lateral side and a medial side of the sole structure, as in Fallon para 29 and Figs 4A-4D, in order to yield the predictable result of permitting side-to-side pivoting of the sole structure about the approximate center between lateral side and the medial side of the sole structure in the forefoot region thereof.
Fallon Fig. 9 does not expressly disclose and wherein the first plate is curved relative to the second plate such that the first plate extends from the beam away from the second plate at a first angle.
However and in further view of Fallon:
Fallon as embodied in para 27 and shown in Figs. 4B-4C teaches a first plate 41 (i.e. “upper support 41”) being curved (“rounded or otherwise concave configuration that extends onto sides of upper 20”) relative to a second plate 42 (i.e. “lower support 42”) such that the first plate 41 extends from a beam 43 away from the second plate 42 at a first angle (see annotated Fig. 4B – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fallon further teaches that providing the first plate so curved is configured “to resist movement in the heel of the foot received by upper 20...the concave configuration of upper support 41 assists with stabilizing the foot”; para 27.
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that the first plate is curved relative to the second plate such that the first plate extends from the beam away from the second plate at a first angle, as in Fallon Fig. 4B, in order to render the sole structure capable of resisting the movement of the portion of the wearer’s foot received by the upper at the location of the first plate and/or to assist in stabilizing the foot, as suggested by Fallon (para 27).
Fallon does not expressly disclose and a midsole that is disposed between the first plate and the second plate, the midsole including a first midsole portion positioned along a lateral side of the beam and a second midsole portion positioned along a medial side of the beam, wherein the first midsole portion is directly coupled to each of the first plate and the second plate and the second midsole portion is directly coupled to each of the first plate and the second plate.
However, Baker teaches (Figs. 8-10) a sole structure 120 (i.e. “assembly 120”; para 77) wherein a midsole 820 (i.e. “insert 820”; para 77) including a first midsole portion 821 (i.e. “first portion 821”; para 78) positioned along a lateral side (Fig. 8 wherein 107 is “lateral”; para 35) of a central portion 151 and a second midsole portion 822 (i.e. “second portion 822”; para 78) positioned along a medial side (Fig. 8 wherein 106 is “medial”; para 35) of the central portion 151 wherein the first midsole portion 821 is directly coupled to a base portion 150 (specifically to portion 154 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and to suspension arms 140 (specifically to arm 141 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10); wherein the second midsole portion 822 is directly coupled to the base portion 150 (specifically to portion 155 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and to the suspension arms 140 (specifically to arm 142 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10).
In Baker, the base portion 150 and suspension arms 140 are pivotably coupled as evidenced by the “tilting in a lateral direction” to “undergo a...degree of bending” as in Figs. 11 and 12 and as described in paras 86-87 and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 5 and described in paras 63-64 wherein lateral portion 104 moves closer to arm 143 whilst medial portion 106 moves away from arm 144 when the wearer “executes lateral maneuvers” “toward a left side” and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 6 and described in para 67 wherein medial portion 106 moves closer to arm 144 whilst lateral portion moves away from arm 143 when the wearer “performs a lateral maneuver to a right side”.
Baker further teaches the midsole 820 so arranged is “an insert to modify the flexibility of the suspended...assembly. In some cases, the insert may prevent extreme bending between suspension arms and a base portion. In other cases, the insert may help control the degree of bending between the suspension arms and the base portion. With this arrangement, an insert may provide greater control of the suspended...assembly to an athlete” (para 76).
Baker further teaches “insert 820 can provide greater stability to article 100, as illustrated in FIG. 9, during lateral...movements” (para 84).
Baker further teaches, in comparing the “embodiments” of “FIGS. 11 and 12...with and without a...insert”: In the embodiment of Fig. 11 and without the midsole: “ article 100 is tilting in a lateral direction. In this case, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a first degree of bending. In some cases, second portion 155 of base portion 150 may contact second suspension arm 142” (para 86). And in the embodiment of Fig. 12 and with the midsole 820: “the use of insert 820 may moderate the bending of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a second degree of bending. In particular, second portion 822 of insert 820 may prevent second portion 155 of base portion 150 from contacting second suspension arm...In some cases, second portion 822 may partially depress to allow for some deformation of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, this arrangement may prevent sole 105 from fully rotating to the lateral side” (para 87).
Baker further teaches “By providing a user with an optional insert, the user can choose whether or not an insert is desired for performing a particular athletic activity. For example, an insert may be used in a situation where...the insert can help reduce the degree of bending that one or more suspension arms may undergo during various maneuvers. In another example, a foam insert can be removed in a situation where...a suspended...assembly without an insert allows for maximum deformation of each suspension arm” (para 88).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that it is provided with a midsole that is disposed between the first plate and the second plate, the midsole including a first midsole portion positioned along a lateral side of the beam and a second midsole portion positioned along a medial side of the beam, wherein the first midsole portion is directly coupled to each of the first plate and the second plate and the second midsole portion is directly coupled to each of the first plate and the second plate in order to prevent extreme bending between the first plate and the second plate; to help control the degree of bending between the first plate and the second plate; and/or to provide greater stability to the sole structure during lateral movements, as suggested by Baker (paras 76, 84, and 87-88).
Regarding claim 2:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Fallon Fig. 9 does not expressly disclose wherein the beam is configured as a linear beam that is aligned along the longitudinal axis of the sole structure.
However, Fallon Figs. 2 and 4D teaches a sole structure (50) comprising plates (41 and 42) pivotally coupled to each other by a beam (43). The beam is configured as a linear beam (Figs. 2 and 4D) that is aligned along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure (Figs. 2 and 4D) wherein a length of the beam (i.e. a length in a heel-toe direction; Figs. 2 and 4D) greater than a width of the beam (i.e. a width in a lateral-medial direction; Fig. 4D; “as having a length that is greater than a width. More particularly, a length dimension of coupling 43, which corresponds with a direction extending along a longitudinal axis of footwear 10, is greater than a width dimension of coupling 43, which corresponds with a direction extending between sides 14 and 15”; para 30).
Fallon further teaches that the linear nature of the beam “permits some degree of pivoting motion in the forward-rearward direction” and “facilitates greater pivoting in a side-to-side direction (i.e., toward either of lateral side 14 and medial side 15)” (para 30).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its beam is configured as a linear beam that is aligned along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure and wherein its length is greater than its width, as in Fallon 4D, in order to permit greater side-to-side pivoting as relative to the forward-rearward pivoting, as taught by Fallon (para 30).
Regarding claim 3:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Fallon further meets the limitation wherein the beam defines a length that is parallel to the longitudinal axis, a width that is perpendicular to the length in a lateral-to-medial direction, and a height between the first plate and the second plate that is perpendicular to both the length and the width, and wherein the length is greater than the at least one of the width or the height. (see above modification, wherein the modification includes the length being greater than the width as in Fallon Fig. 4D).
Regarding claim 4:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 3, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 4 above, the modified Fallon does not meet the limitation wherein the beam has a rectangular cross-section taken perpendicular to the length.
However, in further view of Fallon: In Fallon Figs. 4B and 4C, the beam 43 has a rectangular cross-section taken perpendicular to the length as evidenced in Fallon 4B and 4C.
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its beam has a rectangular cross-section taken perpendicular to the length, as in Fallon Figs. 4B and 4C, as one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a beam with a cross-section wherein the beam is configured to permit pivoting movement of the plates.
Regarding claim 8:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
In Fallon Fig. 9, a gap extends from a lateral side to a medial side in the midfoot region between the second plate and another, heel, plate at 50b’.
Fallon Fig. 9 does not expressly disclose wherein the midsole further includes a third midsole portion coupled to the first plate in the heel region, wherein the third midsole portion is configured to be opposite the upper, wherein the third midsole portion is spaced from the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion by a gap that extends from a lateral side to a medial side in the midfoot region.
However and in further view of Baker:
Baker teaches (Figs. 8-10) a sole structure 120 (i.e. “assembly 120”; para 77) wherein a midsole 820 (i.e. “insert 820”; para 77) including a first midsole portion 821 (i.e. “first portion 821”; para 78) positioned along a lateral side (Fig. 8 wherein 107 is “lateral”; para 35) of a central portion 151 and a second midsole portion 822 (i.e. “second portion 822”; para 78) positioned along a medial side (Fig. 8 wherein 106 is “medial”; para 35) of the central portion 151 wherein the first midsole portion 821 is directly coupled to a base portion 150 (specifically to portion 154 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and to suspension arms 140 (specifically to arm 141 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10); wherein the second midsole portion 822 is directly coupled to the base portion 150 (specifically to portion 155 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and to the suspension arms 140 (specifically to arm 142 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10). In Baker, the base portion 150 and suspension arms 140 are pivotably coupled as evidenced by the “tilting in a lateral direction” to “undergo a...degree of bending” as in Figs. 11 and 12 and as described in paras 86-87 and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 5 and described in paras 63-64 wherein lateral portion 104 moves closer to arm 143 whilst medial portion 106 moves away from arm 144 when the wearer “executes lateral maneuvers” “toward a left side” and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 6 and described in para 67 wherein medial portion 106 moves closer to arm 144 whilst lateral portion moves away from arm 143 when the wearer “performs a lateral maneuver to a right side”.
Baker further teaches the midsole 820 so arranged is “an insert to modify the flexibility of the suspended...assembly. In some cases, the insert may prevent extreme bending between suspension arms and a base portion. In other cases, the insert may help control the degree of bending between the suspension arms and the base portion. With this arrangement, an insert may provide greater control of the suspended...assembly to an athlete” (para 76).
Baker further teaches “insert 820 can provide greater stability to article 100, as illustrated in FIG. 9, during lateral...movements” (para 84).
Baker further teaches, in comparing the “embodiments” of “FIGS. 11 and 12...with and without a...insert”: In the embodiment of Fig. 11 and without the midsole: “ article 100 is tilting in a lateral direction. In this case, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a first degree of bending. In some cases, second portion 155 of base portion 150 may contact second suspension arm 142” (para 86). And in the embodiment of Fig. 12 and with the midsole 820: “the use of insert 820 may moderate the bending of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a second degree of bending. In particular, second portion 822 of insert 820 may prevent second portion 155 of base portion 150 from contacting second suspension arm...In some cases, second portion 822 may partially depress to allow for some deformation of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, this arrangement may prevent sole 105 from fully rotating to the lateral side” (para 87).
Baker further teaches “By providing a user with an optional insert, the user can choose whether or not an insert is desired for performing a particular athletic activity. For example, an insert may be used in a situation where...the insert can help reduce the degree of bending that one or more suspension arms may undergo during various maneuvers. In another example, a foam insert can be removed in a situation where...a suspended...assembly without an insert allows for maximum deformation of each suspension arm” (para 88).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its midsole further includes a third midsole portion coupled to the first plate in the heel region, wherein the third midsole portion is configured to be opposite the upper, wherein the third midsole portion is spaced from the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion by a gap that extends from a lateral side to a medial side in the midfoot region in order to prevent extreme bending between the first plate and the second plate at the heel region; to help control the degree of bending between the first plate and the second plate at the heel region; and/or to provide greater stability to the sole structure during lateral movements at the heel region, as suggested by Baker (paras 76, 84, and 87-88).
Regarding claim 9:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Fallon further discloses wherein the beam is integrally formed with at least one of the first plate or the second plate (Pivot element 40 may be molded from a polymer material such that upper support 41, lower support 42, and coupling 43 are formed of unitary (i.e., one piece) construction”; para 33).
Regarding claim 10:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Fallon further discloses wherein the second plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – a presented in above treatment of claim 1) is configured as an outsole (as in annotated Fig. 9 – a presented in above treatment of claim 1).
Fallon Fig. 9 does not expressly disclose wherein the second plate is configured as an outsole that includes at least one ground engaging element extending from a bottom surface of the second plate.
However, Fallon Fig. 6 teaches a second plate (see annotated Fig. 6 – c below) that includes at least one ground engaging element 32b extending from a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 6 – c below) of the second plate.
PNG
media_image3.png
710
887
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fallon further teaches the ground engaging element “may be formed from a rubber material that provides a durable and wear-resistant surface for engaging the ground. In addition, outsole element 32 b may be textured to enhance the traction (e.g., friction) properties between footwear 10 and the ground” (para 26).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its second plate configured as an outsole includes at least one ground engaging element extending from a bottom surface of the second plate, as in Fallon Fig. 6, in order to provide a durable and wear-resistant surface for engaging the ground and/or to enhance traction between the sole structure and the ground, as taught by Fallon (para 26).
Regarding claim 11:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above. Fallon further discloses wherein the beam is configured to allow the first plate and the second plate to pivot by a first maximum angular rotation in a first direction and by a second maximum angular rotation in a second direction.
(The beam of Fallon is configured to permit pivoting of the first plate relative to the second plate (Abstract) and in the same general manner shown in Figs. 5A-5C; such pivoting defines an angular rotation in a first direction (as in Fig. 5B) and angular rotation in a second direction (Fig. 5C). Such angular rotation in either direction can occur up to a limit beyond which the plates will no longer rotate; Fallon does not specify where this limit is on either side of the sole structure; however, it is noted that upon increasing the angular rotation, the first plate and the second plate are brought closer to each other on one side of the sole structure such that they will eventually reach a point where they are no longar capable of further rotation if only due to the physical characteristics of the “unitary (i.e., one piece)” (para 33) pivot element 40 comprising plates 41, 42 and beam 43. In other words, Fallon is configured such that angular rotation cannot occur infinitely about beam 43 in either direction such that the limitation is met.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fallon, US 2007/0084081] and [Baker, 2010/0186261] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Byrne, US 2008/0127518, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Fallon does not expressly disclose wherein the first midsole portion is a first cushioning member having a first density and the second midsole portion is a second cushioning member having a second density that is different than the first density.
However and in further view of Fallon:
Fallon teaches (Fig. 6) providing a first midsole portion (one of 46) is a first cushioning member (“compressible” (para 42) such that it is a cushioning member) between a first plate 41 and a second plate 42 and providing a second midsole portion (the other of 46) between the first plate 41 and the second plate 42 wherein the second cushioning member has a second compressibility that is different from the first compressibility.
Fallon is silent as to density.
However, Byrne teaches a sole structure (“footbed system”; Abstract) wherein foam density influences degree of compressibility (para 85), with denser foams compressing less than lighter foams (para 85).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its first midsole portion is a first cushioning member that is less compressible than its second midsole portion that is a second cushioning member, as in Fallon, and that such relative compressibility is achieved by different foam density, as in Byrne, in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure that is capable of permitting less side-to-side pivoting towards the lateral side of the sole structure than the medial side of the sole structure.
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at “wherein the first midsole portion is a first cushioning member having a first density and the second midsole portion is a second cushioning member having a second density that is different than the first density” as claimed insofar as the second density of the more compressible second cushioning member would be different than the first density of the less compressible first cushioning member.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fallon, US 2007/0084081] and [Baker, 2010/0186261] as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of [Wilson, US 2010/0122472, previously cited].
Regarding claim 12:
Fallon in view of Baker teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fallon does not expressly disclose wherein each of the first maximum angular rotation and the second maximum angular rotation are between about 10 degrees and about 30 degrees.
However, Wilson teaches a sole structure (Abstract) wherein the sole structure permits forefoot rotation (Abstract). Wilson further teaches (Fig. 1) that for a human foot, “typical forefoot eversion” is in the range of “0…to about 15 degrees relative to the heel” while “forefoot inversion” is “in the range of 0…to about 35 degrees relative to the heel” (para 57). Wilson further teaches “some resistance” to torsion is “desirable to prevent injury while not sacrificing necessary freedom of movement” (para 2) and that the footwear is configured to “limit the sole from twisting and reduce injury” (para 59).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its first maximum angular rotation is 0 to about 15 degrees and that its second maximum angular rotation is 0 to about 35 degrees so as to yield the predictable result of a sole structure that permits foot inversion and eversion while also preventing angular overextension lest the wearer become injured, as suggested by Wilson (paras 2, 59).
Regarding the specific limitations of between about 10 degrees and about 30 degrees: Because Wilson is concerned with desired freedom and injury prevention and because the modified footwear provides a range encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed first and second maximum angular rotation values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired sole properties. The claimed maximum angular rotations are merely optimum or workable maximum rotations and the maximum rotation in either direction is expected to affect freedom of movement and injury prevention properties of the sole structure.
Therefore: It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that each of the first maximum angular rotation and the second maximum angular rotation are between about 10 degrees and about 30 degrees in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure that permits 10-30 degrees of rotation for freedom of movement but that restricts rotation beyond such values so as to prevent injury to the wearer.
Regarding claim 13:
Fallon in view of Baker teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Fallon does not expressly disclose wherein the first maximum angular rotation is different from the second maximum angular rotation.
However, Wilson teaches a sole structure (Abstract) wherein the sole structure permits forefoot rotation (Abstract). Wilson further teaches (Fig. 1) that for a human foot, “typical forefoot eversion” is in the range of “0…to about 15 degrees relative to the heel” while “forefoot inversion” is “in the range of 0…to about 35 degrees relative to the heel” (para 57). Wilson further teaches “some resistance” to torsion is “desirable to prevent injury while not sacrificing necessary freedom of movement” (para 2) and that the footwear is configured to “limit the sole from twisting and reduce injury” (para 59).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the disclosure of 35 degrees for inversion is greater than the 15 degrees disclosed for eversion.
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Fallon such that its first maximum angular rotation is different from its second maximum angular rotation in order to yield the predictable result of permitting forefoot inversion to a higher extent and eversion to a lower extent and also to prevent injury, as suggested by Wilson (paras 2, 59).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fallon, US 2007/0084081, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 07/02/2024] in view of [Baker, 2010/0186261, newly cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Fallon discloses (Fig. 9):
A sole structure 30’ (i.e. “sole structure 30’”; para 45) for an article of footwear 10’ (i.e. “footwear 10’”; para 45) having an upper 20’ (i.e. “upper 20’”; para 45) and defining a forefoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – d below), a midfoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – d below), and a heel region (see annotated Fig. 9 – d below), the sole structure comprising:
an upper plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – d below),
a lower plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – d below) that is spaced from (as in annotated Fig. 9 – d below) and pivotably (“Pivot element...in the forefoot region”; para 45) coupled with the upper plate by a beam (see annotated Fig. 9 – d below) that is configured to allow the upper plate and lower plate to rotate relative to one another from a neutral state (a state described “in a configuration wherein sole element 50 is generally aligned with the remainder of footwear 10” as described in reference to Fig. 5A of the embodiment of Fig. 5A and shown in Fig. 5A in reference to the embodiment of Fig. 5A) toward each of a lateral side and a medial side of the sole structure (“coupling 43 of pivot element 40 permits side-to-side pivoting between upper 20 and sole element 50” in the manner described in reference to the embodiment of Figs. 5A-5C and as shown in Figs. 5B and 5C; para 35).
PNG
media_image4.png
607
1090
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fallon Fig. 9 does not disclose wherein the upper plate is curved relative to the lower plate such that the upper plate extends from the beam away from the lower plate at a first angle.
However and in further view of Fallon:
Fallon as embodied in para 27 and shown in Figs. 4B-4C teaches an upper plate 41 (i.e. “upper support 41”) being curved (“rounded or otherwise concave configuration that extends onto sides of upper 20”) relative to a lower plate 42 (i.e. “lower support 42”) such that the upper plate 41 extends from a beam 43 away from the lower plate 42 at a first angle (see annotated Fig. 4B – b presented in above treatment of claim 1).
Fallon further teaches that providing the first plate so curved is configured “to resist movement in the heel of the foot received by upper 20...the concave configuration of upper support 41 assists with stabilizing the foot”; para 27.
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that the upper plate is curved relative to the lower plate such that the upper plate extends from the beam away from the lower plate at a first angle, as in Fallon Fig. 4B, in order to render the sole structure capable of resisting the movement of the portion of the wearer’s foot received by the upper at the location of the upper plate and/or to assist in stabilizing the foot, as suggested by Fallon (para 27).
Fallon does not expressly disclose:
a first midsole portion disposed on the lateral side of the beam and extending from the beam to a lateral distal end of the upper plate, the first midsole portion directly coupled to each of the upper plate and the lower plate so that the relative rotation of the upper plate and the lower plate causes the first midsole portion to deform, the deformation of the first midsole portion providing a first resistive force that opposes the relative rotation of the upper and lower plates, and
a second midsole portion disposed on the medial side of the beam and extending from the beam to a medial distal end of the upper plate, the second midsole portion directly coupled to each of the upper plate and the lower plate so that the relative rotation of the upper plate and the lower plate causes the second midsole portion to deform, the deformation of the second midsole portion providing a second resistive force that opposes the relative rotation of the upper and lower plates.
However, Baker teaches (Figs. 8-10) a sole structure 120 (i.e. “assembly 120”; para 77) wherein a midsole 820 (i.e. “insert 820”; para 77) including a first midsole portion 821 (i.e. “first portion 821”; para 78) positioned along a lateral side (Fig. 8 wherein 107 is “lateral”; para 35) of a central portion 151 and a second midsole portion 822 (i.e. “second portion 822”; para 78) positioned along a medial side (Fig. 8 wherein 106 is “medial”; para 35) of the central portion 151 wherein the first midsole portion 821 is directly coupled to a base portion 150 (specifically to portion 154 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and to suspension arms 140 (specifically to arm 141 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) so that the relative rotation of the base portion 150 and the suspension arms 140 causes the first midsole portion 821 to deform, the deformation of the first midsole portion providing a first resistive force that opposes the relative rotation of the base portion and suspension arms (“constructed of a resilient material” such that the “the resiliency of a material comprising insert 820, insert 820” is “configured to modify the bending” (para 82) in such a way that the resilient material is capable of deforming and providing a resistive force as claimed; is configured to deform in the same way that second portion 822 is described as “partially depress to allow for some deformation”(para 87)); wherein the second midsole portion 822 is directly coupled to the base portion 150 (specifically to portion 155 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and to the suspension arms 140 (specifically to arm 142 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) so that the relative rotation of the base portion 150 and the suspension arms 140 causes the second midsole portion to deform, the deformation of the second midsole portion providing a second resistive force that opposes the relative rotation of the base portion and suspension arms (“constructed of a resilient material” such that the “the resiliency of a material comprising insert 820, insert 820” is “configured to modify the bending” (para 82) in such a way that the resilient material is capable of deforming and providing a resistive force as claimed; is configured to deform in the same way that second portion 822 is described as “partially depress to allow for some deformation”(para 87)).
In Baker, the base portion 150 and suspension arms 140 are pivotably coupled as evidenced by the “tilting in a lateral direction” to “undergo a...degree of bending” as in Figs. 11 and 12 and as described in paras 86-87 and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 5 and described in paras 63-64 wherein lateral portion 104 moves closer to arm 143 whilst medial portion 106 moves away from arm 144 when the wearer “executes lateral maneuvers” “toward a left side” and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 6 and described in para 67 wherein medial portion 106 moves closer to arm 144 whilst lateral portion moves away from arm 143 when the wearer “performs a lateral maneuver to a right side”.
Baker further teaches the midsole 820 so arranged is “an insert to modify the flexibility of the suspended...assembly. In some cases, the insert may prevent extreme bending between suspension arms and a base portion. In other cases, the insert may help control the degree of bending between the suspension arms and the base portion. With this arrangement, an insert may provide greater control of the suspended...assembly to an athlete” (para 76).
Baker further teaches “insert 820 can provide greater stability to article 100, as illustrated in FIG. 9, during lateral...movements” (para 84).
Baker further teaches, in comparing the “embodiments” of “FIGS. 11 and 12...with and without a...insert”: In the embodiment of Fig. 11 and without the midsole: “ article 100 is tilting in a lateral direction. In this case, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a first degree of bending. In some cases, second portion 155 of base portion 150 may contact second suspension arm 142” (para 86). And in the embodiment of Fig. 12 and with the midsole 820: “the use of insert 820 may moderate the bending of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a second degree of bending. In particular, second portion 822 of insert 820 may prevent second portion 155 of base portion 150 from contacting second suspension arm...In some cases, second portion 822 may partially depress to allow for some deformation of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, this arrangement may prevent sole 105 from fully rotating to the lateral side” (para 87).
Baker further teaches “By providing a user with an optional insert, the user can choose whether or not an insert is desired for performing a particular athletic activity. For example, an insert may be used in a situation where...the insert can help reduce the degree of bending that one or more suspension arms may undergo during various maneuvers. In another example, a foam insert can be removed in a situation where...a suspended...assembly without an insert allows for maximum deformation of each suspension arm” (para 88).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that it is provided with a first midsole portion disposed on the lateral side of the beam and extending from the beam to a lateral distal end of the upper plate, the first midsole portion directly coupled to each of the upper plate and the lower plate so that the relative rotation of the upper plate and the lower plate causes the first midsole portion to deform, the deformation of the first midsole portion providing a first resistive force that opposes the relative rotation of the upper and lower plates, and a second midsole portion disposed on the medial side of the beam and extending from the beam to a medial distal end of the upper plate, the second midsole portion directly coupled to each of the upper plate and the lower plate so that the relative rotation of the upper plate and the lower plate causes the second midsole portion to deform, the deformation of the second midsole portion providing a second resistive force that opposes the relative rotation of the upper and lower plates in order to prevent extreme bending between the upper plate and the lower plate; to help control the degree of bending between the upper plate and the lower plate; and/or to provide greater stability to the sole structure during lateral movements, as suggested by Baker (paras 76, 84, and 87-88).
Regarding claim 15:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 14, as set forth above.
Fallon further discloses wherein the lower pate extends from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end in the midfoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – e below).
PNG
media_image5.png
607
1090
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fallon does not expressly disclose wherein each of the lower plate, the first midsole portion, and the second midsole portion extends from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end in the midfoot region.
However and in further view of Baker:
In Baker, first midsole portion 821 is substantially coextensive in a heel-toe-direction with the base portion 150 and with the suspension arms 140 (Fig. 9). And second midsole 822 appears to be similarly substantially coextensive (Fig. 8). Moreover, the purpose of the midsole portions 821, 822 is to prevent extreme bending and/or control bending (para 76) between base portion and suspension arms such that the function of the midsole portions would be achieved when said portions are disposed between the base portion and suspension arms.
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that the first midsole portion the second midsole portion extend from the first end in the forefoot region to the second end in the midfoot region, in the same manner that the lower plate so extends, in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure whose first and second midsole portions are configured to prevent extreme bending between the upper plate and the lower plate between the first end and the second end, to help control the degree of bending between the upper plate and the lower plate between the first end and the second end; and/or to provide greater stability to the sole structure between the first end and the second end during lateral movements.
Regarding claim 16:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 15, as set forth above.
Fallon further discloses wherein the beam is disposed entirely within the forefoot region (as in annotated Fig. 9 – d presented in above treatment of claim 13).
Fallon Fig. 9 does not expressly disclose wherein the beam is aligned along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure and is disposed entirely within the forefoot region.
However, Fallon Figs. 2 and 4D teaches a sole structure (50) comprising plates (41 and 42) pivotally coupled to each other by a beam (43). The beam is aligned along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure (Figs. 2 and 4D).
Fallon further teaches that the linear nature of the beam “permits some degree of pivoting motion in the forward-rearward direction” and “facilitates greater pivoting in a side-to-side direction (i.e., toward either of lateral side 14 and medial side 15)” (para 30).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that its beam is aligned along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure in order to yield the predictable result of permitting side-to-side pivoting relative to the longitudinal axis of the sole structure.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fallon, US 2007/0084081] and [Baker, 2010/0186261] as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of [Wilson, US 2010/0122472, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Fallon in view of Baker teaches The sole structure of claim 14, as set forth above.
Fallon further discloses wherein the beam is configured to allow the upper plate and the lower plate to pivot by a first maximum angular rotation.
(The beam of Fallon is configured to permit pivoting of the first plate relative to the second plate (Abstract) and in the same general manner shown in Figs. 5A-5C; such pivoting defines an angular rotation in a first direction (as in Fig. 5B) and angular rotation in a second direction (Fig. 5C). Such angular rotation in either direction can occur up to a limit beyond which the plates will no longer rotate; Fallon does not specify where this limit is on either side of the sole structure; however, it is noted that upon increasing the angular rotation, the first plate and the second plate are brought closer to each other on one side of the sole structure such that they will eventually reach a point where they are no longar capable of further rotation if only due to the physical characteristics of the “unitary (i.e., one piece)” (para 33) pivot element 40 comprising plates 41, 42 and beam 43. In other words, Fallon is configured such that angular rotation cannot occur infinitely about beam 43 in either direction.)
Fallon does not expressly disclose wherein the beam is configured to allow the upper plate and the lower plate to rotate relative to one another by a maximum angular rotation that is between about 15 degrees and about 35 degrees.
However, Wilson teaches a sole structure (Abstract) wherein the sole structure permits forefoot rotation (Abstract). Wilson further teaches (Fig. 1) that for a human foot, “typical forefoot eversion” is in the range of “0…to about 15 degrees relative to the heel” while “forefoot inversion” is “in the range of 0…to about 35 degrees relative to the heel” (para 57). Wilson further teaches “some resistance” to torsion is “desirable to prevent injury while not sacrificing necessary freedom of movement” (para 2) and that the footwear is configured to “limit the sole from twisting and reduce injury” (para 59).
It 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 to have modified Fallon such that its beam is configured to allow the upper plate and the lower plate to rotate relative to one another by a first maximum angular rotation of 0 to about 15 degrees in one direction and by a second maximum angular rotation of 0 to about 35 degrees in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure that permits foot inversion and eversion while also preventing angular overextension lest the wearer become injured, as suggested by Wilson (paras 2, 59).
Regarding the specific limitation to rotate relative to one another by a maximum angular rotation that is between about 15 degrees and about 35 degrees: Because Wilson is concerned with desired freedom and injury prevention and because the modified footwear provides a range encompassing the claimed limitation (i.e. the range of the modified footwear includes about 15 degrees in each direction), the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed first and second maximum angular rotation values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired sole properties. The claimed maximum angular rotations are merely optimum or workable maximum rotations and the maximum rotation in either direction is expected to affect freedom of movement and injury prevention properties of the sole structure.
Therefore: It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that the beam is configured to allow the upper plate and the lower plate to rotate relative to one another by a maximum angular rotation that is between about 15 degrees and about 35 degrees in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure that permits 15-35 degrees of rotation for freedom of movement but that restricts rotation beyond such values so as to prevent injury to the wearer.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fallon, US 2007/0084081, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 07/02/2024] in view of [Baker, 2010/0186261, newly cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Fallon discloses (Fig. 9):
A sole structure 30’ (i.e. “sole structure 30’”; para 45) for an article of footwear 10’ (i.e. “footwear 10’”; para 45) having an upper 20’ (i.e. “upper 20’”; para 45) and defining a forefoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below), a midfoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below), and a heel region (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below), the sole structure comprising:
an upper plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below) extending from the forefoot region, through the midfoot region, to the heel region, the upper plate being configured to couple to the upper;
a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below) positioned predominately in the forefoot region, the forefoot portion including:
a first lower plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below) that is spaced from (as in annotated Fig. 9 – f below) and pivotably (“Pivot element...in the forefoot region”; para 45) coupled with the upper plate by a beam (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below) that is configured to allow the upper plate and the first lower plate to rotate relative to one another from a neutral state (a state described “in a configuration wherein sole element 50 is generally aligned with the remainder of footwear 10” as described in reference to Fig. 5A of the embodiment of Fig. 5A and shown in Fig. 5A in reference to the embodiment of Fig. 5A) toward each of a lateral side and a medial side of the sole structure (“coupling 43 of pivot element 40 permits side-to-side pivoting between upper 20 and sole element 50” in the manner described in reference to the embodiment of Figs. 5A-5C and as shown in Figs. 5B and 5C; para 35), and
a heel portion (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below) positioned predominately in the heel region, the heel portion including:
a second lower plate (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below), and
wherein the forefoot portion and the heel portion are spaced apart from one another by a gap in the midfoot region (see annotated Fig. 9 – f below).
PNG
media_image6.png
607
1090
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fallon Fig. 9 does not disclose wherein the upper plate is curved relative to the lower plate such that the upper plate extends from the beam away from the first lower plate at a first angle.
However and in further view of Fallon:
Fallon as embodied in para 27 and shown in Figs. 4B-4C teaches an upper plate 41 (i.e. “upper support 41”) being curved (“rounded or otherwise concave configuration that extends onto sides of upper 20”) relative to a lower plate 42 (i.e. “lower support 42”) such that the upper plate 41 extends from a beam 43 away from the lower plate 42 at a first angle (see annotated Fig. 4B – b presented in above treatment of claim 1).
Fallon further teaches that providing the first plate so curved is configured “to resist movement in the heel of the foot received by upper 20...the concave configuration of upper support 41 assists with stabilizing the foot”; para 27.
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that the upper plate is curved relative to the first lower plate such that the upper plate extends from the beam away from the first lower plate at a first angle, as in Fallon Fig. 4B, in order to render the sole structure capable of resisting the movement of the portion of the wearer’s foot received by the upper at the location of the upper plate and/or to assist in stabilizing the foot, as suggested by Fallon (para 27).
Fallon does not expressly disclose a first midsole portion positioned between and directly coupled to the upper plate and the first lower plate, the first midsole portion extending from the beam to a medial distal end of the upper plate and at least partially surrounding the beam, such that the first midsole portion includes a lateral midsole portion positioned along a lateral side of the beam and a medial midsole portion disposed along a medial side of the beam;
wherein each of the lateral midsole portion and the medial midsole portion is directly coupled to both the upper plate and the first lower plate.
However, Baker teaches (Figs. 8-10) a sole structure 120 (i.e. “assembly 120”; para 77) wherein a first midsole portion 820 (i.e. “insert 820”; para 77) is positioned between and directly coupled to a base portion 150 and a suspension arms 140 and extending from a beam 151 (i.e. “central portion 151” which is configured to “facilitate movement” of arms 140; para 53) to a medial distal end of the base portion 150 (specifically to an end of 155 thereof as evidenced in Fig. 10) and at least partially surrounding the beam (as evidenced in Figs. 8-10) such that the first midsole portion 820 includes a lateral midsole portion 821 (i.e. “first portion 821”; para 78) positioned along a lateral side (Fig. 8 wherein 107 is “lateral”; para 35) of the beam and a medial midsole portion 822 (i.e. “second portion 822”; para 78) disposed along a medial side of the beam (Fig. 8 wherein 106 is “medial”; para 35);
wherein each of the lateral midsole portion 821 and the medial midsole portion 822 is directly coupled to both the base portion 150 and the suspension arms 140 (specifically lateral midsole portion 821 is directly coupled to portion 154 of the base portion and to 141 of the arms as evidenced in Fig. 10; medial midsole portion 822 is directly coupled to portion 155 of the base portion and to 142 of the arms as evidenced in Fig. 10).
In Baker, the base portion 150 and suspension arms 140 are pivotably coupled as evidenced by the “tilting in a lateral direction” to “undergo a...degree of bending” as in Figs. 11 and 12 and as described in paras 86-87 and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 5 and described in paras 63-64 wherein lateral portion 104 moves closer to arm 143 whilst medial portion 106 moves away from arm 144 when the wearer “executes lateral maneuvers” “toward a left side” and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 6 and described in para 67 wherein medial portion 106 moves closer to arm 144 whilst lateral portion moves away from arm 143 when the wearer “performs a lateral maneuver to a right side”.
Baker further teaches the midsole 820 so arranged is “an insert to modify the flexibility of the suspended...assembly. In some cases, the insert may prevent extreme bending between suspension arms and a base portion. In other cases, the insert may help control the degree of bending between the suspension arms and the base portion. With this arrangement, an insert may provide greater control of the suspended...assembly to an athlete” (para 76).
Baker further teaches “insert 820 can provide greater stability to article 100, as illustrated in FIG. 9, during lateral...movements” (para 84).
Baker further teaches, in comparing the “embodiments” of “FIGS. 11 and 12...with and without a...insert”: In the embodiment of Fig. 11 and without the midsole: “ article 100 is tilting in a lateral direction. In this case, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a first degree of bending. In some cases, second portion 155 of base portion 150 may contact second suspension arm 142” (para 86). And in the embodiment of Fig. 12 and with the midsole 820: “the use of insert 820 may moderate the bending of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a second degree of bending. In particular, second portion 822 of insert 820 may prevent second portion 155 of base portion 150 from contacting second suspension arm...In some cases, second portion 822 may partially depress to allow for some deformation of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, this arrangement may prevent sole 105 from fully rotating to the lateral side” (para 87).
Baker further teaches “By providing a user with an optional insert, the user can choose whether or not an insert is desired for performing a particular athletic activity. For example, an insert may be used in a situation where...the insert can help reduce the degree of bending that one or more suspension arms may undergo during various maneuvers. In another example, a foam insert can be removed in a situation where...a suspended...assembly without an insert allows for maximum deformation of each suspension arm” (para 88).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that it is provided with a first midsole portion positioned between and directly coupled to the upper plate and the first lower plate, the first midsole portion extending from the beam to a medial distal end of the upper plate and at least partially surrounding the beam, such that the first midsole portion includes a lateral midsole portion positioned along a lateral side of the beam and a medial midsole portion disposed along a medial side of the beam; wherein each of the lateral midsole portion and the medial midsole portion is directly coupled to both the upper plate and the first lower plate to prevent extreme bending between the upper plate and the first lower plate; to help control the degree of bending between the upper plate and the first lower plate and/or to provide greater stability to the sole structure during lateral movements, as suggested by Baker (paras 76, 84, and 87-88).
Fallon does not expressly disclose a second midsole member positioned between and directly coupled to each of the upper plate and the second lower plate.
However and in further view of Baker:
However, Baker teaches (Figs. 8-10) a sole structure 120 (i.e. “assembly 120”; para 77) wherein a midsole member 820 (i.e. “insert 820”; para 77) is positioned between and directly coupled to a base portion 150 and a suspension arms 140 (specifically portion 821 is directly coupled to portion 154 of the base portion and to 141 of the arms as evidenced in Fig. 10; portion 822 is directly coupled to portion 155 of the base portion and to 142 of the arms as evidenced in Fig. 10).
In Baker, the base portion 150 and suspension arms 140 are pivotably coupled as evidenced by the “tilting in a lateral direction” to “undergo a...degree of bending” as in Figs. 11 and 12 and as described in paras 86-87 and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 5 and described in paras 63-64 wherein lateral portion 104 moves closer to arm 143 whilst medial portion 106 moves away from arm 144 when the wearer “executes lateral maneuvers” “toward a left side” and in the same general manner shown in Fig. 6 and described in para 67 wherein medial portion 106 moves closer to arm 144 whilst lateral portion moves away from arm 143 when the wearer “performs a lateral maneuver to a right side”.
Baker further teaches the midsole member 820 so arranged is “an insert to modify the flexibility of the suspended...assembly. In some cases, the insert may prevent extreme bending between suspension arms and a base portion. In other cases, the insert may help control the degree of bending between the suspension arms and the base portion. With this arrangement, an insert may provide greater control of the suspended...assembly to an athlete” (para 76).
Baker further teaches “insert 820 can provide greater stability to article 100, as illustrated in FIG. 9, during lateral...movements” (para 84).
Baker further teaches, in comparing the “embodiments” of “FIGS. 11 and 12...with and without a...insert”: In the embodiment of Fig. 11 and without the midsole: “ article 100 is tilting in a lateral direction. In this case, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a first degree of bending. In some cases, second portion 155 of base portion 150 may contact second suspension arm 142” (para 86). And in the embodiment of Fig. 12 and with the midsole 820: “the use of insert 820 may moderate the bending of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, suspended...assembly 120 may undergo a second degree of bending. In particular, second portion 822 of insert 820 may prevent second portion 155 of base portion 150 from contacting second suspension arm...In some cases, second portion 822 may partially depress to allow for some deformation of suspended...assembly 120. In some cases, this arrangement may prevent sole 105 from fully rotating to the lateral side” (para 87).
Baker further teaches “By providing a user with an optional insert, the user can choose whether or not an insert is desired for performing a particular athletic activity. For example, an insert may be used in a situation where...the insert can help reduce the degree of bending that one or more suspension arms may undergo during various maneuvers. In another example, a foam insert can be removed in a situation where...a suspended...assembly without an insert allows for maximum deformation of each suspension arm” (para 88).
It 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 to have modified the modified Fallon such that it is provided with a second midsole member positioned between and directly coupled to each of the upper plate and the second lower plate to prevent extreme bending between the upper plate and the second lower plate; to help control the degree of bending between the upper plate and the second lower plate at the heel region; and/or to provide greater stability to the sole structure during lateral movements at the heel region, as suggested by Baker (paras 76, 84, and 87-88).
Regarding claim 20:
Fallon in view of Baker teach The sole structure of claim 18, as set forth above.
Fallon further discloses wherein the first lower plate is configured as a first outsole portion (as in annotated Fig. 9 – f presented in above addressing of claim 18) and the second lower plate is configured as a second outsole portion (as in annotated Fig. 9 – f presented in above addressing of claim 18).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732