DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 30 December 2025. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1 and 3-5 are amended. Claims 2 is cancelled. Claims 6-12 are new.
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 Remarks
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited reference does not teach “wherein the reference air pressure level is determined based on a type of activity inputted through a user interface of a remote device by a user”. Examiner agrees. Accordingly, a new reference, Livaccari, has been added to the rejection as further detailed below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molyneux (US 2014/0165427 A1) hereinafter known as Molyneux in view of Livaccari (US 2017/0336781 A1) hereinafter known as Livaccari.
Regarding independent claim 1, Molyneux teaches:
obtaining a first air pressure measurement of an inflatable bladder disposed on an article of footwear; (Molyneux: Figs. 1 and 5 and ¶[0053]; Molyneux teaches retrieving pressure value inside bladder 122.)
calculating a pressure differential between the first air pressure measurement of the bladder and a reference air pressure level; (Molyneux: Figs. 1 and 5 and ¶[0053]; Molyneux teaches determining if the current bladder pressure is within a predetermined error or percentage of the target pressure.)
...
...
...
...
An embodiment of Molyneux does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
determining whether the calculated pressure differential is within a predetermined tolerance of the reference air pressure level; (Molyneux: Figs. 1 and 5 and ¶[0053]; Molyneux teaches determining if the current bladder pressure is within a predetermined error or percentage of the target pressure, such as within 5% of the value of the target pressure.)
calculating an air pressure adjustment for the bladder based on the calculated pressure differential; and (Molyneux: Figs. 1 and 5 and ¶[0053]; Molyneux teaches determining if the current bladder pressure is within a predetermined error or percentage of the target pressure, such as within 5% of the value of the target pressure.)
actuating a pump disposed on the article of footwear to adjust the air pressure of the bladder based on the calculated air pressure adjustment. (Molyneux: Fig. 5 and ¶[0054]; Molyneux teaches entering deflation or inflation mode.)
Molyneux is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to footwear with varying pressure air bladders. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine footwear with an air bladder wherein the system is capable of measuring the current air pressure and target air pressure with further calculating how much to adjust the air pressure based on the calculation. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow to change the air pressure based on activity, as suggested by Molyneux: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0056].
Molyneux does not explicitly teach but Livaccari teaches:
wherein the reference air pressure level is determined based on a type of activity inputted through a user interface of a remote device by a user. (Livaccari: Figs. 1-2 and ¶[0024]-¶[0029]; Livaccari teaches a remote interface where the user is able to select Terrain Response, Distance Response, and Weather Response to change the cushioning level. ¶[0030] further teaches the user being able to specify a type of a sport.)
Livaccari is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to footwear with varying pressure air bladders. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine footwear with an air bladder wherein the system is capable of adjusting the pressure in the footwear air bladder based on user input and activity as taught in Molyneux with further allowing the user to adjust the air pressure level remotely based on a type of activity as taught in Livaccari. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Molyneux to include teachings of Livaccari because it would allow the user to operate with default settings or set custom settings, as suggested by Livaccari: ¶[0025].
Regarding claim 3, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Livaccari further teaches:
wherein the type of activity is selected from a group consisting of running, walking, jumping, and participating in an athletic event. (Livaccari: Figs. 1-2 and ¶[0030]; Livaccari teaches the user being able to specify a type of a sport.)
Regarding claim 4, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Molyneux further teaches:
wherein the reference air pressure level is further determined by: obtaining a plurality of air pressure measurements of the inflatable bladder associated with a period of time; calculating a desired air pressure level for the bladder using the plurality of air pressure measurements associated with the period of time; and setting the desired air pressure level as the reference air pressure level. (Molyneux: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0056]-¶[0063]; Molyneux teaches determining pressures during multiple periods of time and adjusting accordingly.)
Regarding claim 10, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Livaccari further teaches:
further comprising: actuating the pump disposed on the article of footwear to adjust the air pressure of the bladder according to a schedule inputted through the user interface of the remote device by the user. (Livaccari: Figs. 1-2 and ¶[0030]; Livaccari teaches the user being able to specify cushioning levels corresponding to different points in a marathon.)
Regarding claim 11, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Livaccari further teaches:
wherein the user interface of the remote device is a graphical user interface shown on a display of the remote device. (Livaccari: Fig. 2; Livaccari teaches the user being able to specify levels on a user interface with graphical elements.)
Regarding claim 12, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Molyneux further teaches:
wherein the first air pressure measurement of the inflatable bladder is detected by a pressure sensor disposed on the article of footwear. (Molyneux: Figs. 1, 5, and ¶[0044] ¶[0053]; Molyneux teaches retrieving pressure value inside bladder 122 using pressure sensor 160.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Spier (US 4,995,173 A) hereinafter known as Spier.
Regarding claim 5, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Molyneux does not explicitly teach but Spier teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: determining whether a wearer's foot is received in the article of footwear; and actuating the pump disposed on the article of footwear to inflate the bladder when determining that a wearer's foot is received in the article of footwear. (Spier: col. 4, lines 25-35; Spier teaches inflation of the bladder when a person puts on the shoe.)
Molyneux and Spier are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to footwear with varying pressure of air bladders. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine footwear with an air bladder wherein the system is capable of adjusting the pressure in the footwear air bladder based on user input and activity as taught in Molyneux with further adjusting the pressure upon the determination that a wearer’s foot is receive as taught in Spier. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Molyneux to include teachings of Spier because it would allow automatic inflation, as suggested by Spier: col. 4, lines 25-35.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Leary (US 2017/0360155 A1) hereinafter known as Leary.
Regarding claim 6, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Molyneux in view of Livaccari does not explicitly teach but Leary further teaches:
wherein the inflatable bladder is coupled to an upper of the article of the footwear. (Leary: ¶[0030]; Leary teaches an inflatable bladder between an upper and a wearer’s foot.)
Leary is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to footwear with varying pressure of air bladders. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine footwear with an air bladder wherein the system is capable of adjusting the pressure in the footwear air bladder based on user input and activity as taught in Molyneux with further an air bladder coupled to an upper of the article of the footwear as taught in Leary. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Molyneux to include teachings of Leary because it would allow cinching down the upper to ensure the wearer’s foot is securely fitted within the upper, as suggested by Leary: ¶[0030].
Regarding claim 7, Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Leary further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 6.
Leary further teaches:
wherein actuating the pump comprises increasing the air pressure of the inflatable bladder to cinch the upper of the article of footwear to a foot of the user wearing the article of footwear. (Leary: ¶[0030]; Leary teaches an inflatable bladder between an upper and a wearer’s foot to help cinch the foot.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Fox-Mudge (US 2016/0174657 A1) hereinafter known as Fox-Mudge.
Regarding claim 8, Molyneux in view of Livaccari further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 1.
Molyneux in view of Livaccari does not explicitly teach but Fox-Mudge teaches:
wherein the reference air pressure level is further determined based on a weight of the user wearing the article of footwear. (Fox-Mudge: ¶[0022]; Fox-Mudge teaches adjusting air pressure to compensate for the user’s weight.)
Fox-Mudge is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. setting a reference air pressure in footwear based on the user’s weight. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine footwear with an air bladder wherein the system is capable of adjusting the pressure in the footwear air bladder based on user input and activity as taught in Molyneux with adjusting the pressure based on the user’s weight as taught in Fox-Mudge. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Molyneux to include teachings of Fox-Mudge because it would allow compensating the pressure based on user’s weight, as suggested by Fox-Mudge: ¶[0022].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Fox-Mudge in view of Ross (US 2011/0214501 A1) hereinafter known as Ross.
Regarding claim 9, Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Fox-Mudge further teaches the computer readable medium storing instruction of claim 8.
Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Fox-Mudge does not explicitly teach but Ross teaches:
wherein the weight of the user wearing of the article of footwear is inputted through a user interface of a remote device by the user. (Ross: ¶[0062]-¶[0063]; Ross teaches the user inputting the weight through a reporting device.)
Ross is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. setting a user’s weight to monitor pressure. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine footwear with an air bladder wherein the system is capable of adjusting the pressure in the footwear air bladder based on user input and activity and adjusting the pressure based on the user’s weight as taught in Molyneux in view of Livaccari in view of Fox-Mudge with further allowing the user to adjust the weight using a remote device as taught in Ross. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Molyneux to include teachings of Ross because it would allow to efficiently to set the weight.
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 ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118