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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-22, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartel et al (US20180184756) in view of Jenkins et al (US20220346492).
Claim 1: A component for a sole structure of an article of footwear, comprising: a plurality of composite layers comprising:
a base layer including a substrate material and defining a longitudinal axis;
a first fiber layer disposed on the base layer,
the first fiber layer defining:
a first fiber array that is disposed at a first angle relative to the longitudinal axis,
the first fiber array including a first plurality of turns arranged along a portion of a periphery of the component; and
a first layer volume comprising the substrate material;
and a second fiber layer disposed on the first fiber layer,
the second fiber layer defining:
a second fiber array that is disposed at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis,
the second fiber array including a second plurality of turns arranged along a portion of the periphery of the component; and
a second layer volume comprising the substrate material,
wherein the base layer, the first fiber layer, and the second fiber layer are printed to form the component,
wherein the component is at least partially received within the sole structure and spaced apart from an insole of the footwear,
wherein the substrate material a total volume of the component
wherein at least one composite layer of the plurality of composite layers defines a fiber array arranged in parallel with respect to the longitudinal axis, and
wherein at least another composite layer of the plurality of composite layers defines another fiber array arranged perpendicular with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Bartel is directed to a plate for an article of footwear includes a substrate, a first strand portion attached to the substrate via first stitching, and a second strand portion disposed on the first layer. The first strand portion includes first segments that each extend between two different locations along the substrate to form a first layer on the substrate. The second strand portion includes second segments that each extend between two different locations along the substrate to form a second layer on the first layer (ABST).
Bartel teaches the first tow 410 (fiber layer) is attached to a base layer substrate 704 (fig. 11) [0143]. The base layer of Bartel is equated with the claimed base layer with a substrate. The plate has a longitudinal axis [0089], [0103].
The substrate material is equated with an impregnated resin matrix material [0134] explained further below.
The first strand portion and the second strand portions are positioned at a first and second angles relative to the longitudinal axis of the substrate as shown in Fig. 7 wherein there are layers 600a-600e positioned at -15 degree and -30 degree angle to the longitudinal axis the fiber layers have different angles [0136].
Bartel shows the first fibers are arranged to have a first plurality of turns arranged along a portion of the periphery and the second fibers have a second plurality of turns as shown in Fig. 9. The first, second and other layers are affixed to the substrate 704 as shown in Fig. 9 and therefore the substrate comprises the fiber array layers. First strand 702c is applied to substrate 704 and may be stitched to 704. Second strand 702d is applied to first strand 702c. Third strand 702a is applied to the second strand and the strands are applied at different angles [0138]. The strands 702a-702e refer to a two of a plurality of fibers, a monofilament, yarn or polymer pre-impregnated tows [0139] and the strands 702a-702e are subjected to heat and pressure to activate the impregnated resin [0141].
As shown in Fig. 10A-10E and 11 with a first tow 700a; a second tow of 700b and a third tow of 700c in a layered configuration. The tows may be formed of the same continuous strand [0046] that can be the same or different fiber types [0144].
Bartel teaches the first and second strands are continuous strands [0046]. As shown in Fig 9-11 the strands are continuous and have turns or loops at the peripheral edge of the sole [0138].
PNG
media_image1.png
818
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
812
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bartel teaches one of the plurality of composite layers defines a fiber array arranged at angles with the longitudinal axis and another one is arranged substantially perpendicular with respect to the longitudinal axis as shown in Fig. 7 and 9, 10a-10e [0138]. Bartel teaches the fibers can be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis [0226] as shown in Fig. 29. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ fibers in each angle motivated to provide strength in each direction.
Bartel teaches the footwear plate 300 is used in footwear and can be disposed between an inner surface of an outsole and a bottom surface of a midsole and the footwear plate disposed upon the inner surface in a forefoot region of the footwear and embedded in the cushion of the heel region [0009]. The footwear plate is shown in fig. 2 between cushioning member 250 and midsole 220. The plate is received in the sole structure and spaced from the insole 260 as there midsole 220 in between. The plate can be concealed within the sole structure or exposed on the side as shown in the figures [0109].
Bartel teaches with reference to Figs. 7 and 8A-8E for the footwear plate the stacked prepreg fiber sheets 600a-600e are impregnated with resin and the concentration of resin is 25-45% [0134]. The resin is equated with the substrate material as the substrate is described as matrix material (Applicant’s specification para 0068).
Bartel differs and does not teach the amount of substrate material in a volume percentage.
Bartel differs and does not teach the inner sole is printed. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a foot plate by multiple fiber layers arranged at different angles motivated to improve the strength of the foot plate.
Jenkins is directed to a shoe sole with plates in the shoe sole (ABST), and a shoe sole at least including a shoe sole main body made of a flexible material, and a plate made of a material having a flexural modulus higher than a flexural modulus of the flexible material constituting the shoe sole main body, in which at least two of the plates are included in the shoe sole main body [0010].
Jenkins teaches the plates are made from a material having a flexural modulus higher than the flexible material constituting the shoe sole main body and desirable to use fiber reinforced plastic such as fibers of glass, aramid, polyethylene and carbon [0063]-[0070]. A matrix is combined with the reinforcing fibers [0073], referred to as FRP. The fiber volume content is 5-70% and preferably 20 to 70% when higher rigidity is required [0081]-[0082]. The balance of the fiber volume would be the resin volume and equated with 30% to 80% resin. Resin volume is equated with the substrate as noted above. Jenkins teaches the fiber volume content overlaps the claimed range of 25-99% and also teaching the higher fiber volume promotes higher rigidity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a resin and fiber volume motivated to provide for the desired rigidity in the sole structure.
As to claim 2, Bartel teaches the first strand portion and the second strand portions are positioned at a first and second angles relative to the longitudinal axis of the substrate as shown in Fig. 7 wherein there are layers 600a-600e positioned at -30 degree angle to the longitudinal axis [0136]. Bartel teaches the fiber tows are arranged in different directions and would inherently have a posterior segment that extends from the posterior to the top surface of the midsole as shown in Fig. 7, 9 and 10a-10e.
As to claim 3, Bartel teaches the first tow of fibers can be one of carbon fibers, boron fibers, glass fibers [0047].
As to claims 4 and 5, Bartel teaches the fiber tows in the first fiber layer and the second fiber layer and the fiber material is 100% of the first layer. Bartel is silent with regard to a fiber volume of at least 90%, but as Bartel teaches 100% fibers, 100% is at least 90%.
As to claims 6 and 7, Bartel differs and does not teach a method of printing the fiber tows nor a removeable layer. Bartel teaches the stack of tow fibers and substrate are placed in a mold and heat and pressure. A mold under heat and pressure is equated with a compression mold. The stack of fiber layers can be impregnated with resin [0127], [0134]. Bartel is silent with regard to a transparent resin. It is reasonable to presume the resins are transparent as Bartel teaches the same resins as claimed. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Bartel differs and does not teach the inner sole is printed nor that a layer is removeable. A removeable layer is not part of the final product. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a foot plate by multiple fiber layers arranged at different angles motivated to improve the strength of the foot plate.
As to claim 8, Bartel teaches the footwear plate 300 is used in footwear and can be disposed between an inner surface of an outsole and a bottom surface of a midsole and the footwear plate disposed upon the inner surface in a forefoot region of the footwear and embedded in the cushion of the heel region [0109]. The footwear plate is shown in fig. 2 or 3 between cushioning member 250 and midsole 220. The insole 260 may be disposed upon the footbed 224. The insole is shown in contact with the midsole which is in contact with the insole. The plate comprises a forefoot region, a midfoot region and a heel region as the plate extends through the entire footwear.
As to claims 9 and 10, Bartel teaches the footwear plate 300 is used in footwear and can be disposed between an inner surface of an outsole and a bottom surface of a midsole and the footwear plate disposed upon the inner surface in a forefoot region of the footwear and embedded in the cushion of the heel region [0109]-[0112]. The footwear plate is shown in Fig. 2 and 3 between cushioning member 250 and midsole 220. The insole 260 may be disposed upon the footbed 224 (Fig. 3). The insole is shown in contact with the midsole which is in contact with the insole. The plate can be concealed within the interior sole structure [0102] or exposed when the voids 421, 423 expose one or more layer sheets 600a-600e of the layer sheets of the plate 300 [0158].
As to claims 11, 12 and 28, Bartel teaches the footwear plate 300 is used in footwear and can be disposed between an inner surface of the outsole and a bottom surface of a midsole and the footwear plate disposed upon the inner surface in a forefoot region of the footwear and embedded in the cushion of the heel region [0109]. The footwear plate is shown in fig. 3 between cushioning member 250 and midsole 220. The insole 260 may be disposed upon the footbed 224. The insole is shown in contact with the midsole which is in contact with the insole [0109]-[0112].
As to claim 11, 12 and 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the plate in contact with the insole as Bartel teaches various embodiments of layers within the shoe sole.
As to claim 13, Bartel is directed to a footwear plate for a sole. The plate comprises substrate, a first strand portion attached to the substrate via first stitching, and a second strand portion disposed on the first layer. The first strand portion includes first segments that each extend between two different locations along the substrate to form a first layer on the substrate. The second strand portion includes second segments that each extend between two different locations along the substrate to form a second layer on the first layer (ABST). Figs. 600a-600e show the various prepreg fiber sheets used to form the plate [0134]. The prepreg sheets can be formed by fiber tows to a substrate or to each other [0134]. The layers of substrate and strand portions are equated with a substrate and a fiber material. The fiber arranged at angle are equated with a fiber array.
Bartel teaches with reference to Figs. 7 and 8A-8E for the footwear plate the stacked prepreg fiber sheets 600a-600e are impregnated with resin and the concentration of resin is 25-45%. The resin is equated with the substrate material as the substrate is described as matrix material (Applicant’s specification para 0068).
Bartel differs and does not teach the amount of substrate material in a volume percentage.
Jenkins is directed to a shoe sole with plates in the shoe sole (ABST), and a shoe sole at least including a shoe sole main body made of a flexible material, and a plate made of a material having a flexural modulus higher than a flexural modulus of the flexible material constituting the shoe sole main body, in which at least two of the plates are included in the shoe sole main body [0010].
Jenkins teaches the plates are made from a material having a flexural modulus higher than the flexible material constituting the shoe sole main body and desirable to use fiber reinforced plastic such as fibers of glass, aramid, polyethylene and carbon [0063]-[0070]. A matrix is combined with the reinforcing fibers [0073], referred to as FRP. The fiber volume content is 5-70% and preferably 20 to 70% when higher rigidity is required [0081]-[0082]. The balance of the fiber volume would be the resin volume and equated with 30% to 80% resin. Resin volume is equated with the substrate as noted above. Jenkins teaches the fiber volume content overlaps the claimed range of 25-99% and also teaching the higher fiber volume promotes higher rigidity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a resin and fiber volume motivated to provide for the desired rigidity in the sole structure.
As to claim 14, Bartel teaches the first strand portion and the second strand portions are positioned at a first and second angles relative to the longitudinal axis of the substrate as shown in Fig. 7 wherein there are layers 600a-600e positioned at -15 degree and -30 degree angle to the longitudinal axis the fiber layers have different angles [0136].
As to claims 15 and 16, Bartel teaches the composite fiber, prepreg layers are stacked. In some configurations, the first layer and the second layer are anisotropic. As described above with reference to FIGS. 1-3, the footwear plate 300 may include the uniform local stiffness that may or may not be anisotropic [0119]. The stacks of fibers at different angle is equated with quasi-isotropic.
As to claim 17, Bartel teaches the stiffness of the plate may be anisotropic where the stiffness in one direction across the plate is different from the stiffness in another direction [0058], the stiffness of the plate may be anisotropic where the stiffness in one direction is different than from the stiffness in another direction [0103] and these property is equated with the bending resistance, torsional resistance or tensile stiffness.
As to claim 18, Bartel teaches the first tow of fibers can be one of carbon fibers, boron fibers, glass fibers [0047].
As to claim 19, Bartel teaches the plate 300 may provide a greater thickness along the longitudinal direction of the sole structure than the stiffness in direction transverse (e.g., perpendicular) to the longitudinal axis L. Bartel teaches the stiffness of the heel region is 20 N/mm-30 N/mm and midfoot region is 75 N/mm-120 N/mm [0058]. The stiffness in the forefoot region may be 95-105 N/mm [0063]. Bartel teaches a first, second and third stiffness in the anterior (forefoot), arch (midfoot) and posterior (heel) as claimed.
As to claim 20, Bartel teaches the stiffness can be different in the heel, forefoot and midfoot regions. Bartel does not teach the stiffness of the heel (third stiffness) is greater than the midfoot and the forefoot stiffness. The stiffness of the plate 300 may be selected for a particular wearer based on the wearer's tendon flexibility, calf muscle strength, and/or MTP joint flexibility. Moreover, the stiffness of the plate 300 may also be tailored based upon a running motion of the athlete [0105]. Bartel teaches the stiffness can be different in the different regions of the plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the desired stiffness in each area of the plate motivated to achieve the desire stiffness of the plate in the shoe.
As to claim 21, Bartel teaches that the properties can be anisotropic or not anisotropic [0103] indicating that the stiffness can be the same in all areas of the plate.
Bartel teaches the stiffness can be tailored to the running motion of the athlete [0105].
As to claim 22 and 24, Bartel teaches the insole is connected to the midsole as described wherein the sole structure 200 may also incorporate additional layers such as an insole 260 (FIGS. 2 and 3) or sockliner, which may reside within the interior void 102 of the upper 100 to receive a plantar surface of the foot to enhance the comfort of the footwear 10. In some examples, a sidewall 230 surrounds at least a portion of a perimeter of the cushioning member 250 and separates the cushioning member 250 and the midsole/strobel 220 to define a cavity 240 therebetween [0194] as shown in Fig. 3. The top side of the plate 300 is coupled to the lower side of the midsole 220 as shown in Fig. 3. [0099].
PNG
media_image3.png
542
848
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 25-27, Bartel teaches the footwear plate 300 is used in footwear and can be disposed between an inner surface of the outsole and a bottom surface of a midsole and the footwear plate disposed upon the inner surface in a forefoot region of the footwear and embedded in the cushion of the heel region [0015]. The footwear plate is shown in fig. 3 between cushioning member 250 and midsole 220. The insole 260 may be disposed upon the footbed 224. The insole is shown in contact with the midsole [0099].
As to claim 29, Bartel teaches the plate can be within the heel region [0106].
As to claim 30, Bartel provides FIG. 2 is an exploded view of the article of footwear of FIG. 1 showing a cushioning member received within a cavity between an inner surface of an outsole and a bottom surface of a midsole, and a footwear plate embedded within the cushioning member in a forefoot region of the footwear and disposed between the cushioning member and the inner surface of the outsole in a heel region of the footwear [0109]-[0110].
PNG
media_image4.png
818
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 31, Bartel teaches the plate is disposed within the forefoot region as shown in Fig. 2 [0067] as the plate extends from the forefoot to the heel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejections have been withdrawn with regard to the substrate volume as Table 1 in the specification shows the volume percentage of substrate and the substrate material is claimed. For purposes of examination, it is clear that the substrate material can be a matrix resin the volume percent is the volume percentage of resin in the plate.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Bartel have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 over Bartel is withdrawn and new grounds of rejection is presented over Bartel in view of Jenkins because Jenkins teaches the volume percentage of fibers in a fiber reinforced polymer shoe plate, which can determine the volume percentage of the polymer matrix (is equated with the substrate material).
Applicant argues that Bartel points to Fig. 9-11 for teaching continuous strands. Applicant argues that Bartel is silent regarding a volume percentage of substrate material within the layers (700a-700e). Applicant argues that there is also no motivation to combine the resin concentration of the prepreg fiber sheet (600a-600e) with the substrate (704) and the continuous strand (702). Applicant argues that the Office does not proffer any reasoning why a resin concentration of a prepreg fiber sheet should be combined with a strand and substrate, nor does the Office provide a motivation for applying a resin concentration of a prepreg fiber sheet to the entirety of a plate comprising a combination of layer types. Applicant states that Bartel teaches the continuous strand (702) and the substrate (704) as an alternative to the prepreg fiber sheets (600a-600e) so that “the footwear plate (300)..includes one fewer layer than by forming the plate (300) via the prepreg fiber sheets (600a-600e).
Applicant's arguments with respect to Bartel filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Fig. 7 shows the stacked prepreg sheets that include the strands and the resin. Figs. 9-11 show the continuous strands 700a-700e which are impregnated with resin as disclosed in [0138] and [0141] and therefore the motivation to impregnate the stands of Fig. 9-11 already exists because Bartel teaches impregnating Fig. 9-11 with resin.
Applicant states that Bartel fails to teach or suggest a component for a sole structure of an article of footwear having a plurality of composite layers including a base layer including a substrate material and defining a longitudinal axis. Applicant states that combining the resin concentration from the prepreg fiber sheets (600a-600e) with the continuous strand (702) would frustrate Bartel’s purpose of providing simpler manufacturing process as it would require an additional step of adding a controlled amount of resin to the continuous strand (702).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Bartel teaches impregnated resin in strands 700a-700e and pre-impregnated sheets 600a-600e and teaches the amount of resin is 25-45 weight % and therefore it would have been obvious to impregnate the fiber strand sheets with resin. Applicant has not claimed a specific process to impregnate the strands with the substrate material nor has Applicant provided evidence that a specific process would result in an improved shoe plate. Wherein Bartel does not teach the volume percentage of resin (i.e. the substrate material), Jenkins teaches the claimed amount of resin and fibers is known in the art and can be optimized to achieve the desired rigidity. This response is with regards to claim 1 as well as claim 13.
Applicant states that Bartel describes that the strands (702) may be positioned at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis and therefore Bartel is silent with regard to a fiber array arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Bartel teaches the fibers can be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis [0226]. In the absence of evidenced that a perpendicular layer provides an unexpected result, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jacobsen (US 20170368722) is directed to a shoe plate that has 50% by volume of fiber reinforcement in polymer which is 50% polymer by volume [0140].
Kozo et al (US 7096605) is directed to a shoe plate that has 10-25% fiber by volume and that is 90-75% polymer (substrate) (col. 4, lines 61-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights