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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/15/2024.
It is noted claim 29 recites a “gasket” (see claim 29 line 11). As stated in the specification, gasket 106 is a feature of the sole structure of Figs. 7-13 (i.e. Species B) and 10 (paras 21, 22, 67, 72, 74-76), and gasket 1406 is a feature of the sole structure of Fig. 14 (i.e. Species C) (paras 76, 82, 84). Accordingly, claim 29 and its dependent claims are drawn to a nonelected species; it is noted that the elected species is Species D: Figs. 15-17 (see the reply filed on 11/15/2024 and the acknowledgement of election in the Office action of 01/28/2025), and, as disclosed, Species D does not include any gasket.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 07/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 15-17, 21, 25-26, and 28-34 are presented.
Claims 1 and 10 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Claims 29-32 are withdrawn (see above).
The present Office action treats claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 15-17, 21, 25-26, 28, and 33-34 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 07/30/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Objection to the Claims: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Regarding claim 4: Applicant’s claim amendment renders the objection to claim 4 as applied in the previous Office action moot.
Regarding claim 23: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot insofar as the cancelation of claim 23 renders the claim objection thereto applied in the previous Office action moot.
Regarding Section 102 and 103 Rejections: 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 “New claims 33 and 34 depend from independent claim 10...” (see p. 12-13 of the reply): 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 § 102
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, 3-4, 6-7, 21, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Reddy, US 2019/0343225].
Regarding claim 1:
Reddy discloses (Figs. 1-7):
A sole structure 11 for an article of footwear 15, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) and a heel region (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below);
a chassis plate 25 (i.e. the one of 25 in the forefoot and mid-foot region) disposed solely in the forefoot region and a mid-foot region (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below);
an outsole plate 17, 19 (i.e. the combined 17 and 19; it is noted element 19 is coupled to element 17 “by adhesive” (para 57) such that the combined 17 and 19 form an outsole plate) extending between the forefoot region and the heel region (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), the outsole plate including a recess (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) disposed in a top surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) and the recess extending through the outsole plate such that a bottom surface of the recess (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) forms a portion of a ground-contacting surface of the outsole plate (para 40; Figs. 2-3),
wherein one or more cleats 35 are disposed on the bottom surface of the recess (Figs. 2-3 and 6; para 40), and wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the chassis plate (Figs. 2-5) ; and
a cushioning element 23 (i.e. one or more of the “balls 23” in “forefoot cavity 55” (para 52), wherein the “balls provide cushioning...sole contains cushioning balls”; para 35) disposed within the recess, wherein the chassis plate is disposed on a side of the cushioning element opposite the recess (bottom surface of recess is below cushioning element and chassis plate 25 is above cushioning element (Fig. 2) such that the chassis plate is disposed on a side of the cushioning element opposite the recess as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
1035
1713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein a top surface of the cushioning element is flush with the top surface of the outsole plate when the cushioning element is disposed within the recess (as in annotated Figs 1-3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the outsole plate includes a bottom surface (as evidenced in Figs. 2-7); and a plurality of traction elements 35 disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate (Fig. 6); it is noted that elements 35 of Reddy are provided of sufficient numeracy such that one or more of elements 35 is the “one or more cleats” of claim 1, and two or more other elements 35 are the plurality of traction elements of claim 4), wherein the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded (the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a process that is silent as to integral molding, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product) into the bottom surface (Fig. 6) of the outsole plate.
Regarding claim 6:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the outsole plate forms a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure (Figs. 2-7).
Regarding claim 7:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the outsole plate has a longitudinal length, and a midpoint along the longitudinal length, wherein the outsole plate includes an anterior area that is anterior to the midpoint, and wherein an area of the cushioning element is less than about 70% of the anterior area.
(As stated in above addressing of claim 1, the cushioning element is one or more of balls 23; accordingly, an area of one ball 23 is related to its diameter, which “can be 4-12 mm in diameter” (para 51) such that an area occupied by one ball is less than about 70% of the anterior area as claimed, as also evidenced by Fig. 1 showing area of one ball relative to an anterior area that is anterior to a midpoint.
Regarding claim 21:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the cushioning element extends outwardly from its center toward an anterior segment, a posterior segment, a lateral segment, and a medial segment (see annotated Fig. 1 – b detail below).
PNG
media_image2.png
869
944
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 4, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the plurality of traction elements includes a set of major cleats (see annotated Fig. 6 – c below) and a set of minor cleats (see annotated Fig. 6 – c below).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
965
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 25, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the major cleats are disposed between opposing minor cleats (as in annotated Fig. 6 – c presented in above addressing of claim 25).
Claim(s) 10, 15, 17, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Reddy, US 2019/0343225].
Regarding claim 10:
Reddy discloses (Figs. 1-7):
A sole structure 11 for an article of footwear 15, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below) and a heel region (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below);
a chassis plate 25 (i.e. the one of 25 in the forefoot and mid-foot region) disposed solely in the forefoot region and a mid-foot region, having a top surface (the surface of plate 25 that is configured to face a wearer’s foot; for the sake of clarity, a callout to said top surface of said plate is not identified in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below; nonetheless, this surface is visible in at least Figs. 2 and 3), a bottom surface (the surface of plate 25 that is configured to face balls 23; for the sake of clarity, a callout to said bottom surface of said plate is not identified in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below; nonetheless, this surface is visible in at least Figs. 2 and 3), and a periphery (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below; it is noted that for the purpose of clarity, the periphery is identified only in Fig. 3 in the annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below; nonetheless, this periphery can also be seen in Fig. 2) extending from the top surface (as in Figs. 2-3 wherein it is noted that the periphery extends from the top surface to the bottom surface of the chassis plate);
an outsole plate 17, 19 (i.e. the combined 17 and 19; it is noted element 19 is coupled to element 17 “by adhesive” (para 57) such that the combined 17 and 19 form an outsole plate) extending between the forefoot region and the heel region (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below), the outsole plate including a receptacle (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below) formed in a top surface of the outsole plate (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below; for the sake of clarity, the top surface is identified only in Fig. 2 of the annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below; nonetheless the top surface of the outsole plate can also be seen in Fig. 3) and extending through the outsole plate such that a bottom surface of the receptacle (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below) forms a portion of a ground-contacting (para 40; Figs. 2-3) surface (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below) of the outsole plate, the receptacle extending between the forefoot region and a mid-foot region (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below), wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the chassis plate (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below); and
a cushioning element 23 (i.e. one or more of the “balls 23” in “forefoot cavity 55” (para 52), wherein the “balls provide cushioning...sole contains cushioning balls”; para 35) disposed in the receptacle (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below), wherein a top surface of the cushioning element (i.e. a surface defined by one or more “tops of the balls 23”; para 58) rests flush (“tops of the balls...are flush with...lip 61...balls do not protrude out of the top of each cavity”; para 58; Figs. 2-3) with the top surface of the outsole plate when the cushioning element is disposed within the receptacle (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – d below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1035
1713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the outsole plate (Figs. 2-7) includes one or more traction elements 35.
Regarding claim 17:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses An article of footwear 15 comprising the sole structure of claim 10.
Regarding claim 33:
Reddy discloses the sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses one or more traction elements 35 are disposed on the bottom surface of the receptacle (Figs. 2-3 and 6; para 40).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Reddy, US 2019/0343225] in view of [Peyton, US 2016/0150855, newly cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Reddy discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the cushioning element includes a single cushioning element 23 (i.e. one of “balls 23” in “forefoot cavity 55”; para 52).
Reddy does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder.
Reddy teaches “The balls 23...are made of a resilient material such as thermoplastic rubber (TPR), polyurethane (PU), polyethylene or ethylene-vinyl acetate rubber (EVA)...the balls in the forefoot cavity 55 can be 4-12 mm in diameter” (para 51) and “As foot pressure is applied the sole, the balls 23 compress down...As the foot pressure is released, such as during walking when the foot is raised to take the next step, the balls resume their spherical shape. The wearer thus experiences softened steps. If walking over a hard ground surface such as concrete, the wearer's feet are protected from the hardness of the ground” (para 61).
A person of ordinary skill would at least expect the resiliency and function of a ball could be afforded if a ball were a fluid-filled bladder ball. However, Reddy does not expressly teach any ball(s) is/are one or more fluid-filled bladder(s).
Peyton teaches (Figs. 5-6) a ball (“sphere”; para 68) cushioning (“cushioning”; para 57) element 18 (i.e. “hollow polymeric sphere[] 18”; para 68) which comprises a fluid-filled (“internal cavity 24 is filled with gas at a predetermined pressure...and sealed to retain the gas at the predetermined pressure”; para 58) bladder 18, a bladder having a diameter of “about 5 millimeters to about 8 millimeters”; para 31.
Peyton further teaches “The hollow polymeric elements 18 are compressible under applied force, such as pressure applied during use by a wearer of the article of footwear 12. The hollow polymeric elements 18 are resilient under the applied force such that after compression the hollow polymeric elements 18 return to their shape...The hollow polymeric elements 18, 118 are configured of suitable materials as described herein that do not experience compression set or more than five percent under repeated use. Compression set causes a permanent loss of resiliency after extensive use. Compression set is a percentage of an article's original thickness that remains permanently set after use. Foam midsoles experience compression set. A percentage compression set is a measure of the permanent deformation of a material such as foam after it has been compressed to a percentage of its original thickness for a controlled time period at a controlled temperature” (para 61).
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 Reddy such that its cushioning elements 23 are fluid-filled bladders, as in Peyton, in order to provide the sole structure with low compression set, as taught by Peyton (para 61).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at the limitation “wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder” insofar as plural fluid-filled bladders would be provided within the sole structure, and a single one of these plural fluid-filled bladders would be the “single fluid-filled bladder” of claim 2; it is noted that MPEP 2111.03 states in relevant part “The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Reddy, US 2019/0343225] in view of [Hartmann, US 2021/0120912, newly cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Reddy discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the cushioning element includes a single cushioning element 23 (i.e. one of “balls 23” in “forefoot cavity 55”; para 52).
Reddy does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder.
Reddy teaches “The balls 23...are made of a resilient material such as thermoplastic rubber (TPR), polyurethane (PU), polyethylene or ethylene-vinyl acetate rubber (EVA)...the balls in the forefoot cavity 55 can be 4-12 mm in diameter” (para 51) and “As foot pressure is applied the sole, the balls 23 compress down...As the foot pressure is released, such as during walking when the foot is raised to take the next step, the balls resume their spherical shape. The wearer thus experiences softened steps. If walking over a hard ground surface such as concrete, the wearer's feet are protected from the hardness of the ground” (para 61).
A person of ordinary skill would at least expect the resiliency and function of a ball could be afforded if a ball were a fluid-filled bladder ball. However, Reddy does not expressly teach any ball(s) is/are one or more fluid-filled bladder(s).
Hartmann teaches (Figs. 2-3) ball (“sphere”; para 68) cushioning (paras 31-32) element 4 (i.e. “4...hollow sphere”; para 28) which comprises a fluid-filled (“hollow body is closed...contains air”; para 31) bladder 4, a bladder having a diameter of “between 4 mm and 10 mm”; para 9.
Hartmann further teaches “The hollow bodies 4 are characterised, among other things, by the fact that they exhibit a strongly non-linear progression of the deformation force over the deformation during compression. Accordingly, the hollow body 4 can be deformed or compressed relatively easily to a certain degree, but above a certain level of deformation the resistance to further deformation increases sharply, i.e. it is now more difficult to deform the hollow body further.¶This behaviour can be very advantageous for cushioning systems in the field of sports and here especially for shoe soles (also midsoles and insoles)” (paras 31-32).
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 Reddy such that its cushioning elements 23 are fluid-filled bladders, as in Hartmann, in order to provide nonlinear deformation progression during compression to provide advantageous cushioning, as taught by Hartmann (paras 31-32).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at the limitation “wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder” insofar as plural fluid-filled bladders would be provided within the sole structure, and a single one of these plural fluid-filled bladders would be the “single fluid-filled bladder” of claim 2; it is noted that MPEP 2111.03 states in relevant part “The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Reddy, US 2019/0343225] in view of [Peyton, US 2016/0150855, newly cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Reddy discloses The sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the cushioning element includes a single cushioning element 23 (i.e. one of “balls 23” in “forefoot cavity 55”; para 52).
Reddy does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder.
Reddy teaches “The balls 23...are made of a resilient material such as thermoplastic rubber (TPR), polyurethane (PU), polyethylene or ethylene-vinyl acetate rubber (EVA)...the balls in the forefoot cavity 55 can be 4-12 mm in diameter” (para 51) and “As foot pressure is applied the sole, the balls 23 compress down...As the foot pressure is released, such as during walking when the foot is raised to take the next step, the balls resume their spherical shape. The wearer thus experiences softened steps. If walking over a hard ground surface such as concrete, the wearer's feet are protected from the hardness of the ground” (para 61).
A person of ordinary skill would at least expect the resiliency and function of a ball could be afforded if a ball were a fluid-filled bladder ball. However, Reddy does not expressly teach any ball(s) is/are one or more fluid-filled bladder(s).
Peyton teaches (Figs. 5-6) a ball (“sphere”; para 68) cushioning (“cushioning”; para 57) element 18 (i.e. “hollow polymeric sphere[] 18”; para 68) which comprises a fluid-filled (“internal cavity 24 is filled with gas at a predetermined pressure...and sealed to retain the gas at the predetermined pressure”; para 58) bladder 18, a bladder having a diameter of “about 5 millimeters to about 8 millimeters”; para 31.
Peyton further teaches “The hollow polymeric elements 18 are compressible under applied force, such as pressure applied during use by a wearer of the article of footwear 12. The hollow polymeric elements 18 are resilient under the applied force such that after compression the hollow polymeric elements 18 return to their shape...The hollow polymeric elements 18, 118 are configured of suitable materials as described herein that do not experience compression set or more than five percent under repeated use. Compression set causes a permanent loss of resiliency after extensive use. Compression set is a percentage of an article's original thickness that remains permanently set after use. Foam midsoles experience compression set. A percentage compression set is a measure of the permanent deformation of a material such as foam after it has been compressed to a percentage of its original thickness for a controlled time period at a controlled temperature” (para 61).
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 Reddy such that its cushioning elements 23 are fluid-filled bladders, as in Peyton, in order to provide the sole structure with low compression set, as taught by Peyton (para 61).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at the limitation “wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder” insofar as plural fluid-filled bladders would be provided within the sole structure, and a single one of these plural fluid-filled bladders would be the “single fluid-filled bladder” of claim 2; it is noted that MPEP 2111.03 states in relevant part “The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Reddy, US 2019/0343225] in view of [Hartmann, US 2021/0120912, newly cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Reddy discloses The sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Reddy further discloses wherein the cushioning element includes a single cushioning element 23 (i.e. one of “balls 23” in “forefoot cavity 55”; para 52).
Reddy does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder.
Reddy teaches “The balls 23...are made of a resilient material such as thermoplastic rubber (TPR), polyurethane (PU), polyethylene or ethylene-vinyl acetate rubber (EVA)...the balls in the forefoot cavity 55 can be 4-12 mm in diameter” (para 51) and “As foot pressure is applied the sole, the balls 23 compress down...As the foot pressure is released, such as during walking when the foot is raised to take the next step, the balls resume their spherical shape. The wearer thus experiences softened steps. If walking over a hard ground surface such as concrete, the wearer's feet are protected from the hardness of the ground” (para 61).
A person of ordinary skill would at least expect the resiliency and function of a ball could be afforded if a ball were a fluid-filled bladder ball. However, Reddy does not expressly teach any ball(s) is/are one or more fluid-filled bladder(s).
Hartmann teaches (Figs. 2-3) ball (“sphere”; para 68) cushioning (paras 31-32) element 4 (i.e. “4...hollow sphere”; para 28) which comprises a fluid-filled (“hollow body is closed...contains air”; para 31) bladder 4, a bladder having a diameter of “between 4 mm and 10 mm”; para 9.
Hartmann further teaches “The hollow bodies 4 are characterised, among other things, by the fact that they exhibit a strongly non-linear progression of the deformation force over the deformation during compression. Accordingly, the hollow body 4 can be deformed or compressed relatively easily to a certain degree, but above a certain level of deformation the resistance to further deformation increases sharply, i.e. it is now more difficult to deform the hollow body further.¶This behaviour can be very advantageous for cushioning systems in the field of sports and here especially for shoe soles (also midsoles and insoles)” (paras 31-32).
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 Reddy such that its cushioning elements 23 are fluid-filled bladders, as in Hartmann, in order to provide nonlinear deformation progression during compression to provide advantageous cushioning, as taught by Hartmann (paras 31-32).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at the limitation “wherein the cushioning element includes a single fluid-filled bladder” insofar as plural fluid-filled bladders would be provided within the sole structure, and a single one of these plural fluid-filled bladders would be the “single fluid-filled bladder” of claim 2; it is noted that MPEP 2111.03 states in relevant part “The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Reddy, US 2019/0343225] in view of [Soumokil, US 2012/0324762, newly cited].
Regarding claim 26:
Reddy discloses The sole structure of claim 25, as set forth above.
Reddy does not expressly disclose wherein cleats of the set of major cleats are a generally crescent shape and cleats of the set of minor cleats are a generally triangular shape.
Soumokil teaches a sole structure (“outsole”; Abstract) wherein a traction element has a generally crescent shape or a generally triangular shape: “Traction element 35 be configured in one of any number of shapes that can provide traction, such as, for example,...triangles,...crescents”; para 60.
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 Steinbeck such that cleats of the set of major cleats are a generally crescent shape and cleats of the set of minor cleats are a generally triangular shape in order to provide traction via the shapes thereof, as suggested by Soumokil (para 60).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Reddy, US 2019/0343225] in view of [Swigart, US 2005/0028403, newly cited].
Regarding claim 34:
Reddy discloses The sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Reddy does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate comprises a composite material including at least one of carbon fibers and glass fibers.
Reddy describes the chassis plate as a “cavity cover[] 25” (para 38), whereby “cavities are closed with...cavity cover[] 25” (para 53).
Swigart teaches a chassis plate 60 (i.e. “covering element 60”; para 53) which is a cover plate 60 (i.e. “covering element 60”; para 53), which is provided atop a cushioning element 50 (50 is configured to be compressed and provide cushioning as described in para 56), wherein the chassis plate is including carbon fibers or glass fibers (“materials may be utilized to form covering element 60...covering element 60 may be formed of a thermoplastic polyurethane or PEBAX...which is a polyether block amide, provides a variety of characteristics that benefit the present invention, including high impact resistance at low temperatures, few property variations in the temperature range of -40 degrees Celsius to positive 80 degrees Celsius, resistance to degradation by a variety of chemicals, and low hysteresis during alternative flexure. Composite materials may also be formed by incorporating glass fibers or carbon fibers into the polymer materials discussed above” (para 53).
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 Reddy such that its chassis plate comprises a composite material including at least one of carbon fibers and glass fibers in order to yield the predictable result(s) of providing stiffness to the chassis plate and/or providing strength to the chassis plate via the carbon and/or glass fibers provided therein.
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
Prosecution Insights