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 1-7, 9-10, 15-17, and 21-28 are presented.
Claim 23 was previously withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 10 are presented in independent form and are amended.
The present Office action treats claims 1-7, 9-10, 15-17, 21-22, and 24-28 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 10/31/2025 (see p. 7-10 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “The originally filed specification and drawings fully support the subject matter of the amended claims” (p. 7): Applicant’s argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. The amendments have necessitated new 35 USC 112 (a) rejections; see rejections below. The originally filed specification and drawings do not support the newly amended subject matter of claim 10 and those claims dependent thereon for the reasons set forth in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Regarding Section 102 Rejections (p. 7-8): Applicant’s arguments have been 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 Section 103 Rejections (p. 9): Applicant’s arguments have been 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites new matter in reciting “a chassis plate having a top surface including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot”.
The specification states “the upper 100 includes a strobel having a...top surface defining a footbed of the interior void...The footbed may be contoured to conform to a profile of the bottom surface (e.g., plantar) of the foot” (para 39; emphases provided by Examiner) such that para 39, while disclosing a surface including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot, does not state that the surface including the contour corresponding to a profile of a foot is of a chassis plate but is rather of a strobel of an upper.
The specification further states a “midsole may define a bottom surface on one side that opposes the outsole and a footbed on the opposite side that may be contoured to conform to a profile of the bottom surface of the foot” (para 5; emphasis provided by Examiner) such that para 39, while disclosing a surface including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot, does not state that the surface including the contour corresponding to a profile of a foot is of a chassis plate but is rather of a midsole.
Thus neither paras 5 or 39 support the limitation “a chassis plate having a top surface including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot”. In addition, there is no support for the limitation ““a chassis plate having a top surface including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot” in the remainder of the specification as filed insofar as only paras 5 and 39 describe a surface contour in relation to a foot; indeed the term “contour” is used only in paras 5 and 39. No other paragraph uses the term “contour”, and the term “contour” is not used in the Abstract as filed and is further not used in the original claims.
Looking to the drawings, no drawing depicts a foot such that no drawing shows a chassis plate in relation to a foot such that no drawing supports the limitation “a chassis plate having a top surface including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot”.
Claims 15-17 are rejected if only because they depend from a rejected claim.
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) 1-2, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Whitney, US 2012/0017467, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Whitney discloses (Figs. 5-8):
A sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 5 and 8 – a below) and a heel region (see annotated Figs. 5 and 8 – a below);
a chassis plate 45 (i.e. “pad 45”; para 44) disposed solely in the forefoot region and a mid-foot region (as in annotated Figs. 5 and 8 – a below wherein chassis plate 45 is disposed in forefoot region and mid-foot region and not in heel region);
an outsole plate 10 (i.e. “sole 10”; para 42) extending between the forefoot region and the heel region (as in annotated Figs. 5 and 8 – a below), the outsole plate 10 including a recess 18 (i.e. “cavity...18”; para 20) disposed in a top surface 14 (i.e. “surface 14”; para 20), wherein the outsole plate 10 is disposed below the chassis plate 45 (as in annotated Figs. 5 and 8 – a below); and
a cushioning element 36 (i.e. “resilient member 36”; para 58, which is configured to “cushion the foot”; para 55) disposed within the recess 18 (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
1047
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney further discloses wherein the cushioning element 36 includes a fluid-filled bladder.
(“The description of resilient member 34 provided hereinafter also applies to resilient member 36” (para 27) wherein resilient member 34 and therefore also resilient member 36 comprise “a resilient medium encapsulated within a fluid-tight barrier material. By way of non-limiting example, the resilient medium may be a gas, a high viscosity liquid, a polymer, or any other resilient fluid” (para 29) such that cushioning element 36 includes a fluid-filled bladder.)
Regarding claim 6:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the outsole plate forms a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure (“Shoe sole 10 defines tread surface 12, a small portion of which is illustrated, for contacting a ground surface (not shown)”; para 19; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney further discloses An article of footwear 52 (i.e. “shoe 52”; para 52) comprising the sole structure of claim 1
Claim(s) 10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Bruce, US 2018/0132564, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 mailed 01/28/2025].
Regarding claim 10:
Bruce discloses (Figs. 9-12):
A sole structure 200b (i.e. “sole structure 200 b”; para 81) for an article of footwear 10b (i.e. “article of footwear 10 b”; para 80), the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region 12 (i.e. “forefoot portion 12”; para 82) and a heel region 16 (i.e. “heel portion 16”; para 86);
a chassis plate 300, 220 (i.e. the combined “plate 300” and “strobel 220”; para 81) having a top surface (see annotated Fig. 11 – a below) including a contour corresponding to a profile of a foot (as evidenced in Fig. 11 wherein the contour of the top surface identified in annotated Fig. 11 – a below is curved about the “calcaneus point 328”, “aft point 326”, and “MTP point 320” (paras 66-67) such that the contour corresponds to a profile of a foot and in the same way that the surface 254 of the embodiment of Fig. 3 is “contoured to conform to the profile of the bottom surface (e.g., plantar) of the foot”; para 53 and in the same way that a surface profile of 274 of the embodiment of Fig. 19 defines “a surface profile contoured to the profile of the bottom surface (e.g., plantar) of the foot”; para 106), a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 11 – a below), and a periphery (see annotated Fig. 11 – a below) extending from the top surface (as in annotated Fig. 11 – a below);
an outsole plate 250b, 210b (i.e. the combined “cushioning member 250 b” and “outsole 210 b”; para 81) extending between the forefoot region and the heel region (Figs. 9-12), the outsole plate including an opening 258b (i.e. “cut-out region 258 b”; para 82) extending between (Figs. 10-12; para 82) the forefoot region 12 and a mid-foot region 14 (i.e. “mid-foot portion 14”; para 85), wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the chassis plate (Figs. 9-12); and
a cushioning element 400 (i.e. “fluid-filled bladder 400”; para 85 which is configured to “impart...cushioning” (para 83)) disposed in the opening (para 82; Figs. 10-12).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
1093
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16:
Bruce discloses The sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Bruce further discloses wherein the cushioning element 400 includes a fluid-filled bladder (“fluid-filled bladder 400”; para 85).
Regarding claim 17:
Bruce discloses The sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Bruce further discloses An article of footwear 10b (i.e. “article of footwear 10 b”; para 80) comprising the sole structure of claim 10.
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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitney, US 2012/0017467, newly cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney does not expressly disclose 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.
Looking to Fig. 8, a top surface of cushioning element 36 appears to be flush with the top surface 14 of the outsole plate. However, Fig. 8 is not expressly to scale and shows channels 30 between the cushioning element 36 and the top surface 14 of the outsole plate such that Fig. 8 alone does not expressly show a top surface of the cushioning element is flush with the top surface of the outsole plate.
However and in further view of Whitney: Whitney teaches “The depth of each resilient member 34 and 36 is approximately equal to the depth “D” and “E” of exposed cavity 16 and 18 of sole 10 (see FIG. 8)” (para 28) and therefore teaches a range for cushioning element depth (i.e. “approximately equal”) that includes equivalence of cushioning element depth and cavity depth.
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 Whitney such that 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 in order to yield the predictable result of a sole structure whose insole 40 rests evenly upon the combined cushioning element and outsole plate atop the flush top surfaces thereof at the region of the insole that spans both the cushioning element and the outsole plate.
Regarding claim 7:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney 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 (as evident in Fig. 8).
Whitney Figs. 5-8 does not expressly disclose 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.
However and in further view of Whitney:
Whitney as embodied in Figs. 2, 4A, and 4B appear to show an area of cushioning element 36 that appears to be less than about 70% of an anterior area. Whitney further teaches the region 26 occupied by the cushioning element “conforms to the shape of the forefoot portion of a foot at a location corresponding to the base of the metatarsals of the foot” (para 24) and further teaches “the respective sizes of resilient member 36 and central region 26 may be tailored” (para 36).
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 Whitney such that an area of the cushioning element is less than about 70% of the anterior area in order to yield the predictable result a sole structure wherein the cushioning element thereof is capable of cushioning the base of the metatarsals of a wearer wherein the area of the base of the metatarsals of the wearer occupies an area that is less than about 70% of an entire anterior area of his foot forward of a midpoint of his foot.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitney, US 2012/0017467, newly cited] in view of [Anceresi, US 2019/0059483, newly cited].
Regarding claim 4:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney does not expressly disclose wherein the outsole plate includes; a bottom surface; and a plurality of traction elements disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
However and in further view of Whitney:
Whitney does teach the outsole plate includes a “tread 12” (para 54) and is silent as to whether said tread comprises a plurality of traction elements disposed on a bottom surface of the outsole plate.
However, Anceresi teaches an outsole plate includes a bottom surface; and a plurality of traction elements disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate: “traction elements such as tread elements or cleats may be secured to a bottom surface of the sole structure 18”; para 31.
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 Whitney such that the outsole plate includes; a bottom surface; and a plurality of traction elements disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate in order to yield a tread comprising the plurality of traction elements wherein said tread and said plurality of traction elements are capable of affording traction, as taught by Anceresi (para 31).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitney, US 2012/0017467, newly cited] and [Anceresi, US 2019/0059483, newly cited] as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of [Greenspan, US 2021/0052037, cited by the Applicant on the IDS of 05/02/2023].
Regarding claim 5:
Whitney in view of Anceresi teach The sole structure of claim 4, as set forth above.
Whitney does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded into the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
However, Greenspan teaches a plurality of “traction elements 280 are integrally molded with the bottom surface 268 of the outsole plate 212”; para 71.
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 Whitney such that the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded into the bottom surface of the outsole plate in order to yield the predictable result of securing the plurality of traction elements to the outsole plate by the traction elements being integrally molded into the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Bruce, US 2018/0132564, previously cited] in view of [Dyer, US 2019/0039342, newly cited].
Regarding claim 15:
Bruce discloses The sole structure of claim 10, as set forth above.
Bruce does not expressly disclose wherein a bottom surface of the outsole plate includes one or more traction elements.
However, Dyer teaches a bottom surface of an outsole plate includes one or more traction elements: “traction elements can be incorporated into the outsole by any necessary or desired mechanism such that the traction elements extend from the bottom surface of the outsole”; para 246.
Dyer further teaches “traction elements” are configured “to provide traction on soft and slippery surfaces” (para 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 Bruce such that a bottom surface of the outsole plate includes one or more traction elements in order to provide traction and/or provide traction on soft and/or slippery surfaces, as taught by Dyer (para 32).
Claim(s) 21-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitney, US 2012/0017467, newly cited] in view of [Kostis, US 2006/0230636, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 mailed 05/29/2025].
Regarding claim 21:
Whitney discloses The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitney does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element extends outwardly from its center toward an anterior segment, a posterior segment, a lateral segment, and a medial segment.
However, Whitney teaches “The...shape of each resilient member 34 and 36 may vary” (para 28) and further teaches “exemplary embodiments...are provided by way of example only. Numerous variations, changes and substitutions will occur to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit of the invention” (para 61).
Kostis teaches a sole structure 30 comprising a fluid-filled bladder 40 wherein said fluid-filled bladder 40 is a cushioning element (capable of attenuating force in the manner described in para 9) further wherein the cushioning element 40 extends (Figs. 3-6C) outwardly from its center toward an anterior segment, a posterior segment, a lateral segment, and a medial segment (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
767
739
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, in Kostis, a perimeter extends between ends of the anterior segment, the posterior segment, the lateral segment, and the medial segment, wherein a portion of the perimeter of the cushioning element is concave when viewed from a radially exterior position (in at least the portion between the medial segment and the anterior segment; and also in at least the portion between the lateral segment and the anterior segment in annotated Fig. 5 – a presented above; “extend inward to impart a concave configuration”; para 41).
Further, in Kostis, the lateral segment has an area that is identical to an area of the medial segment (as evidenced in annotated Fig. 5 – a presented above).
Kostis teaches the shape of the cushioning element 40 “relates to manufacturing efficiency” in that “waste in the materials forming bladders 40 is minimized...multiple bladders 40 are formed with greater manufacturing efficiency due to the limited amount of waste product...Another advantage to forming bladder 40 in the configuration...relates to energy efficiency...Each of the convex edges are formed, therefore with a convex edge in a single bonding operation. That is, the edges of two adjacent bladders are formed simultaneously to reduce the overall number of bonding operations that must occur to form multiple bladders 40, thereby promoting energy efficiency” (paras 49-50).
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 Kostis such that the cushioning element extends outwardly from its center toward an anterior segment, a posterior segment, a lateral segment, and a medial segment and further such that wherein a perimeter extends between ends of the anterior segment, the posterior segment, the lateral segment, and the medial segment, wherein a portion of the perimeter of the cushioning element is concave when viewed from a radially exterior position and further such that the lateral segment has an area that is identical to an area of the medial segment, as in Kostis, in order to improve manufacturing and/or energy efficiency during the manufacture of the shoe sole, as taught by Kostis (paras 49-50).
Regarding claim 22:
Whitney in view of Kostis teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
The modified Whitney further meets the limitation wherein a perimeter extends between ends of the anterior segment, the posterior segment, the lateral segment, and the medial segment, wherein a portion of the perimeter of the cushioning element is concave when viewed from a radially exterior position (refer to above treatment of claim 21 where the limitation is addressed).
Regarding claim 24:
Whitney in view of Kostis teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
The modified Whitney further meets the limitation wherein the lateral segment has an area that is identical to an area of the medial segment (refer to above treatment of claim 21 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitney, US 2012/0017467, newly cited] and [Anceresi, US 2019/0059483, newly cited] as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of [Bowerman, US 4,107,858, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 mailed 05/29/2025].
Regarding claim 25:
Whitney in view of Anceresi teach The sole structure of claim 4, as set forth above.
Whitney does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of traction elements includes a set of major cleats and a set of minor cleats.
However, Bowerman teaches (Figs. 5-6) an outsole plate 12’ wherein a bottom surface thereof is provided with a plurality of traction elements 18’, 18’’, 20’, 22’, 60 disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate (Figs. 5-6).
In Bowerman (Figs. 5 and 6), the plurality of traction elements includes a set of major cleats 60 and a set of minor cleats 18’; wherein cleats of the set of major cleats 60 are a generally crescent shape (Fig. 5); wherein cleats of the set of minor cleats 18’ are a generally triangular shape (Figs. 5-6); wherein the major cleats are disposed between (Figs. 5-66, wherein it is noted that “If something is between two things, it has one of the things on one side of it and the other thing on the other side of it.” between. (n.d.) Collins COBUILD English Usage. (1992, 2004, 2011, 2012). Retrieved May 22 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/between)) opposing minor cleats 18’, 18’.
Bowerman further teaches the “triangles” are “for increased traction” (col. 3 lines 30-31) and the cleats 60 “provide additional traction and are self-cleaning” (col. 5 line 19).
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 Whitney such that its plurality of traction elements includes a set of major cleats and a set of minor cleats wherein cleats of the set of major cleats are a generally crescent shape; wherein cleats of the set of minor cleats are a generally triangular shape; wherein the major cleats are disposed between opposing minor cleats in order to increase traction and afford self-cleaning properties to the sole structure, as taught by Bowerman (col. 3 lines 30-31; col. 5 line 19).
Regarding claim 26:
Whitney in view of Anceresi and Bowerman teach The sole structure of claim 25, as set forth above.
The modified Whitney further meets the limitation wherein cleats of the set of major cleats are a generally crescent shape.
(Refer to above treatment of claim 25 wherein the limitation is addressed.)
Regarding claim 27:
Whitney in view of Anceresi and Bowerman teach The sole structure of claim 25, as set forth above.
The modified Whitney further meets the limitation wherein cleats of the set of minor cleats are a generally triangular shape.
(Refer to above treatment of claim 25 wherein the limitation is addressed.)
Regarding claim 28:
Whitney in view of Anceresi and Bowerman teach The sole structure of claim 25, as set forth above.
The modified Whitney further meets the limitation wherein the major cleats are disposed between opposing minor cleats.
(Refer to above treatment of claim 25 wherein the limitation is addressed.)
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