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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-24 remain pending in the application, with Claims 16-21 being newly amended and Claims 23-24 being newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perrault et al. (US 2018/0271211).
Regarding Claim 1, Perrault et al. teaches a midsole (300) for an article of footwear (fig. 3 shows the midsole (300) for an article of footwear), the midsole comprising: a three-dimensional mesh (320) comprising: a first lattice comprising a plurality of interconnected first unit cells, each interconnected first unit cell comprising a first base strut geometry defined by a first plurality of struts and a first plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected; and a second lattice comprising a plurality of interconnected second unit cells outside of the plurality of interconnected first unit cells, each interconnected second unit cell comprising a second base strut geometry different than the first base strut geometry and defined by a second plurality of struts and a second plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (paragraph [0125] teaches “three dimensional mesh 320 may include a plurality of unit cells 322 having a first base geometry and a plurality unit cells 322 having a second base geometry different from the first base geometry,” and paragraph [0109] teaches “The interconnected unit cells 322 include a plurality of struts 324 defining a three dimensional shape of a respective unit cell 322. The interconnection (valence) between unit cells 322 may be defined by a plurality of nodes 326 at which one or more struts are connected,” therein the first and second lattices and therein the first and second pluralities of unit cells are clearly distinct from one another and therein outside of one another, and each is clearly comprising a respective first or second base strut geometry defined by a respective first and second plurality of struts and nodes); a transition region (300) located between the plurality of interconnected first unit cells and the plurality of interconnected second unit cells and comprising a third plurality of struts connecting nodes among the first plurality of nodes to nodes among the second plurality of nodes, wherein the transition region does not contain any instance of the first base strut geometry or any instance of the second base strut geometry (paragraph [0126] teaches “three dimensional mesh 320 may include one or more transition zones 330 to provide for a gradual change in characteristics for midsole 300. In some embodiments, a transition zone 330 may include unit cells having the first base geometry interspersed with unit cells having the second base geometry. In such embodiments, a transition zone 330 may include unit cells having a first size interspersed with unit cells having a second size to provide for gradual change in unit cell size, and thus a gradual change in characteristics of midsole 300. In some embodiments, a transition zone 330 may include unit cells having a first strut thickness interspersed with unit cells having a second strut thickness to provide for gradual change in characteristics of midsole 300,” therein as there some embodiments where the transition zone includes instances of the first and second base strut geometries, there are clearly some other embodiments where the transition zone does not include instances of the first and second base strut geometries) and a skin (316) that covers at least a portion of an exterior of the first lattice and a portion of an exterior of the second lattice (fig. 6 shows the skin covering a portion of an exterior of the first and second lattices), wherein the skin comprises a plurality of skin cells (see annotated Fig.) that comprise skin struts (see annotated Fig.) and skin nodes (see annotated Fig.) and that differ in strut geometry from the first unit cells and second unit cells (annotated fig. 6 shows the skin having struts and nodes forming cells, the struts being flatter than the struts of the first and second unit cells, therein having a different strut geometry than the first and second unit cells).
Regarding Claim 2, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein the struts of the first plurality of struts are aligned on edges of polygons of a polygon mesh of an implicit surface and contact struts of the plurality of struts in at least one neighboring second unit cells (fig. 9A shows an example unit cell, wherein the struts (902) are aligned on edges of polygons, the polygons forming a polygon mesh of an implicit surface; paragraph [0133] teaches “Struts 912 from adjacent unit cells (shaded gray for illustration purposes) are shown connected to some nodes 904 of unit cell 900,” therein the struts of the first plurality of cells can clearly contact struts of the plurality of struts, further fig. 3 shows each of the first and second unit cells being interconnected, therein struts of the first plurality of struts can clearly contact structs of the plurality of struts in at least one neighboring second unit cells).
Regarding Claim 23, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein the skin comprises beams (see annotated Fig.) extending continuously across multiple of the skin cells (annotated fig. 6 shows beams of the skin extending continuously across multiple skin cells).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kormann et al. (US 2016/0051009).
Regarding Claim 16, Kormann et al. teaches a sole for an article of footwear (300) (fig. 4c shows the sole being used in an article of footwear (300)) comprising: a midsole (100) comprising: a three dimensional lattice (180) comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells (fig. 3a shows a plurality of interconnected unit cells being formed by nodes (140) and supporting members (144), as also disclosed in paragraph [0126]: “nodes 140 are shown at a part of the lattice structure where eight supporting members 144 converge to form node 140”) wherein the three dimensional lattice comprises a medial side and a lateral side (annotated fig. 1s shows the lattice having a medial side and a lateral side); a skin (122-125) that covers at least a portion of an exterior of the three dimensional lattice and includes a plurality of skin cells (see annotated Fig.) that differ in geometry from the unit cells (figs. 1a, 1b, and 3a show the skin (122-125) covering a portion of an exterior of the lattice, and including a plurality of skin cells that clearly have a different geometry from the unit cells, as the skin cells are singular extending beams and the unit cells include a plurality of nodes and supporting members, as noted above), wherein the skin covers a portion of the medial side and a portion of the lateral side of the three dimensional lattice (Annotated fig. 1 shows the skin covering a portion of the medial side and the lateral side of the lattice), a ground facing side defined by the three-dimensional lattice (fig. 1a shows the ground facing side being defined by the three dimensional lattice), wherein a lower edge of the skin defines a portion of a border of the ground facing side (fig. 1a shows the lower edge of the skin (122-125) defining a portion of a border of the ground facing side at the heel end of the midsole); and an outsole (160) attached to the ground facing side of the midsole (fig. 1d shows the bumpers attached to the ground facing side of the midsole).
Regarding Claim 21, Kormann et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above. Kormann et al. further teaches wherein the skin is absent from the ground facing side such that the three dimensional lattice is exposed on the ground facing side (annotated fig. 1a, b shows the skin being absent from portions of the ground facing side therein exposing the 3D lattice on the ground facing surface).
Regarding Claim 24, Kormann et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above. Kormann et al. further teaches wherein the outsole (160) is attached directly to the three-dimensional lattice (fig. 1d shows the outsole being attached directly to the lattice; paragraph [0116] teaches “the first bumper elements 160, 165 may be clipped or pressed into the “cells” formed by adjacent first and second reinforcing struts and connecting nodes 140,” therein the outsole is clearly directly attached to the lattice formed by the struts and nodes).
PNG
media_image2.png
473
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
465
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
298
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrault et al. (US 2018/0271211) in view of Coonrod et al. (US 2022/0110408).
Regarding Claim 3, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein: each second unit cell comprises: thin struts and thick struts among the second plurality of struts and nodes (paragraph [0122] teaches “In some embodiments, the thickness of struts 324 defining the unit cells 322 may vary in a vertical direction between top side 310 of midsole 300 and bottom side 312 of midsole 300. In some embodiments, the thickness of struts 324 defining unit cells 322 may decrease in the vertical direction from bottom side 312 of midsole 300 to top side 310 of midsole 300. In some embodiments, the thickness of struts 324 defining unit cells 322 may vary in a transverse direction between medial side 306 of midsole 300 and lateral side 308 of midsole 300,” therein the second unit cells each clearly comprise thin and thick struts).
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein: each second unit cell comprises: an upper-forward quadrant and a lower-rearward quadrant; and an upper-rearward quadrant and a lower-forward quadrant, wherein the struts in the upper-forward and lower-rearward quadrants are arranged differently than in the upper-rearward and lower-forward quadrants.
Attention is drawn to Coonrod et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Coonrod et al. teaches a midsole (140) for an article of footwear, the midsole comprising: a three dimensional lattice (160) comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells (169) (fig. 1 shows the lattice comprising unit cells (169), wherein each unit cell comprises: a plurality of struts and a plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (paragraph [0078] teaches “Mesh component 160 may include a plurality of struts 166 connected to one another at nodes 168 as described herein. Struts 166 connected to one another at nodes 168 of mesh component 160 can define a plurality of interconnected unit cells 169 for mesh component 160.”; fig. 30A also shows an isolated unit cell (3000) made of nodes (2930) and struts (2940)). Coonrod et al. further teaches wherein each unit cell comprises: an upper-forward quadrant (2920) and a lower-rearward quadrant (2926), each of which contains struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes; and an upper-rearward quadrant (2922) and a lower-forward quadrant (2924), each of which contains struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes, wherein the struts in the upper-forward and lower-rearward quadrants are arranged differently than in the upper-rearward and lower-forward quadrants (paragraph [0141] teaches “FIGS. 30A and 30B show a lattice cell 2900 populated with soft sub-cells 2930 and stiff sub-cells 2940 for a unit cell 3000 according to some embodiments. The unit cell 3000 shown includes: (i) two soft sub-cells 2930 located side-by-side in the upper-forward quadrant 2920, (ii) two stiff sub-cells 2940 located side-by-side in the upper-rearward quadrant 2922, (iii) two stiff sub-cells 2940 located in the lower-forward quadrant 2924, and (iv) two soft sub-cells 2930 located in the lower-rearward quadrant 2926,” wherein the stiff sub cells have a first geometry different than a second geometry of the soft sub cells, as shown in figs. 32A-C (soft sub cells) and figs. 33A-C (stiff sub cells), therein the struts in the upper forward and lower rearward quadrants are clearly arranged differently than in the upper rearward and lower forward quadrants).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. to include the teachings of Coonrod et al. such that each second unit cell comprises: an upper-forward quadrant and a lower-rearward quadrant; and an upper-rearward quadrant and a lower-forward quadrant, wherein the struts in the upper-forward and lower-rearward quadrants are arranged differently than in the upper-rearward and lower-forward quadrants so as to create a mesh that is predisposed to deform forwards during use (paragraph [0141], “This arrangement of soft and stiff sub-cells can result in a mesh component that is predisposed to deform forwards (i.e., in forward longitudinal direction 10) when a sole including the mesh component contacts the ground.”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrault et al. (US 2018/0271211)
Regarding Claim 4, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of interconnected first unit cells surrounds the plurality of interconnected second unit cells on at least one plane. However, Perrault et al. does teach wherein “the location of the plurality of unit cells 322 having the first base geometry and the location of the plurality of unit cells 322 having the second base geometry may be based on a biometric data profile collected for an individual, or group of individuals” (paragraph [0125]). Further, Perrault et al. teaches in an exemplary embodiment wherein zones 1830, 1832, and 1834 have interconnected first unit cells that surround second interconnected unit cells on one plane (see fig. 18D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the midsole of Claim 1 such that the plurality of interconnected first unit cells surrounds the plurality of interconnected second unit cells on at least one plane so as to allow the first unit cells and second unit cells to cooperate with one another to form a midsole that is comfortable for a rearfoot striker (paragraph [0184] “As shown in FIGS. 18A-18F, three dimensional mesh 1800 includes a first zone 1830, second zone 1832, and third zone 1834 having struts 1822 with relatively large thickness. Nodes 1824 within zones 1830, 1832, and 1834 also have a relatively large thickness. Zones 1830, 1832, and 1834 provide a high degree of support for zones of three dimensional mesh 1800 associated with areas typically subject to large stresses for a rearfoot striker.”).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrault et al. (US 2018/0271211) in view of Laperriere et al. (US 2022/0142284).
Regarding Claim 5, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein the transition region (330) comprises a plurality of third unit cells, wherein each third unit cell comprises: a first side and a second side (paragraph [0126] teaches “a transition zone 330 may include unit cells,” wherein the unit cells of the transition region are considered the third unit cells, and further wherein a unit cell clearly has a first side and a second side).
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein each third unit cell comprises the first side being adjoined by one of the first unit cells and the second side being adjoined by one of the second unit cells; a first segment that comprises the first side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first unit cell; a second segment that comprises the second side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining second unit cell and is different in structure than the first segment.
Attention is drawn to Laperriere et al. which teaches an analogous article of cushioning. Laperriere et al. teaches a three-dimensional mesh (140) comprising: a plurality of interconnected first unit cells (801), each interconnected first unit cell comprising a first base strut geometry defined by a first plurality of struts and a first plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (fig. 35D shows the first unit cells having a first base strut geometry defined by a first plurality of nodes and struts); and a plurality of interconnected second unit cells (802)outside of the plurality of interconnected first unit cells, each interconnected second unit cell comprising a second base strut geometry different than the first base strut geometry and defined by a second plurality of struts and a second plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (fig. 35D shows the second unit cells outside the first unit cells and having a second base strut geometry that is different from the first base strut geometry defined by a second plurality of nodes and struts); a transition region (see annotated Fig.) located between the plurality of interconnected first unit cells and the plurality of interconnected second unit cells and comprising a third plurality of struts connecting nodes among the first plurality of nodes to nodes among the second plurality of nodes, wherein the transition region does not contain any instance of the first base strut geometry or any instance of the second base strut geometry (annotated fig. 35D shows the transition region between the first and second unit cells having comprising a third plurality of struts connecting first and second nodes, the transition region being free of any instance of the first or second base strut geometry, as noted to be in interpreted in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above). Laperriere et al. further teaches wherein the transition region comprises a plurality of third unit cells (see annotated Fig.), wherein each third unit cell comprises: a first side and a second side, the first side being adjoined by one of the first unit cells and the second side being adjoined by one of the second unit cells (annotated fig. 35D shows the first and second sides being adjoined by the first and second unit cells, respectively); a first segment (see annotated Fig.) that comprises the first side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first unit cell; a second segment (see annotated Fig.) that comprises the second side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining second unit cell and is different in structure than the first segment (Annotated fig. 35D shows the first and second segments comprising the first and second sides and being identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first and second unit cell, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. to include the teachings of Laperriere et al. such that each third unit cell comprises the first side being adjoined by one of the first unit cells and the second side being adjoined by one of the second unit cells; a first segment that comprises the first side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first unit cell; a second segment that comprises the second side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining second unit cell and is different in structure than the first segment so as to have a short transition between the first and second plurality of unit cells, allowing the midsole to have a greater number of customized cushioning areas.
Regarding Claim 7, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 5, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein the first segment and second segment are each a respective quarter of the third unit cell.
Attention is drawn to Laperriere et al. which teaches an analogous article of cushioning. Laperriere et al. teaches a three-dimensional mesh (140) comprising: a plurality of interconnected first unit cells (801), each interconnected first unit cell comprising a first base strut geometry defined by a first plurality of struts and a first plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (fig. 35D shows the first unit cells having a first base strut geometry defined by a first plurality of nodes and struts); and a plurality of interconnected second unit cells (802) outside of the plurality of interconnected first unit cells, each interconnected second unit cell comprising a second base strut geometry different than the first base strut geometry and defined by a second plurality of struts and a second plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (fig. 35D shows the second unit cells outside the first unit cells and having a second base strut geometry that is different from the first base strut geometry defined by a second plurality of nodes and struts); a transition region (see annotated Fig.) located between the plurality of interconnected first unit cells and the plurality of interconnected second unit cells and comprising a third plurality of struts connecting nodes among the first plurality of nodes to nodes among the second plurality of nodes, wherein the transition region does not contain any instance of the first base strut geometry or any instance of the second base strut geometry (annotated fig. 35D shows the transition region between the first and second unit cells having comprising a third plurality of struts connecting first and second nodes, the transition region being free of any instance of the first or second base strut geometry, as noted to be in interpreted in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above), and wherein the transition region comprises a plurality of third unit cells (see annotated Fig.), wherein each third unit cell comprises: a first side and a second side, the first side being adjoined by one of the first unit cells and the second side being adjoined by one of the second unit cells (annotated fig. 35D shows the first and second sides being adjoined by the first and second unit cells, respectively); a first segment (see annotated Fig.) that comprises the first side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first unit cell; a second segment (see annotated Fig.) that comprises the second side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining second unit cell and is different in structure than the first segment (Annotated fig. 35D shows the first and second segments comprising the first and second sides and being identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first and second unit cell, respectively). Laperriere et al. further teaches wherein the first segment and second segment are each a respective quarter of the third unit cell (Annotated fig. 35D shows the first and second segments each being a quarter of the third unit cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. to include the teachings of Laperriere et al. such that the first segment and second segment are each a respective quarter of the third unit cell so as to allow additional transitioning structure to be present in the unit cell as well, easing the abruptness of transition from one zone to another.
PNG
media_image5.png
698
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al. (US 2016/0122493) in view of Laperriere et al. (US 2022/0142284)
Regarding Claim 9, Farris et al. teaches a midsole (4) for an article of footwear, the midsole comprising: a three-dimensional mesh (fig. 4 shows the midsole comprising a 3D mesh) comprising: a first lattice comprising a plurality of interconnected first unit cells (45), each interconnected first unit cell comprising a base surface geometry that comprises a solid representation of an implicit surface that contacts solid representations of the implicit surface in at least two neighboring first unit cells (fig. 4 shows the first unit cells (45) being interconnected and comprising a base surface geometry that comprises a solid representation of an implicit surface, the solid surface contacting the solid surface of at least two neighboring first unit cells), wherein the base surface geometry comprises ribbons and the ribbons comprise edges (see annotated Fig.) located at a respective position within the base surface geometry (Annotated fig. 4 shows the geometry comprising ribbons, the ribbons having edges located a respective position); and a second lattice comprising a plurality of interconnected second unit cells (44) outside of the plurality of interconnected first unit cells, each interconnected second unit cell comprising a base strut geometry comprising a plurality of struts and a plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (annotated fig. 4 shows the second unit cells (44) outside of the first unit cells comprising a plurality of struts and nodes where the struts are connected) wherein the base strut geometry comprises struts located at a position within the base strut geometry that is the same as the position of one of the edges within the base surface geometry (annotated fig. 4 shows struts being located at a position that is the same as the edge, as the edge and the struts are both present at an outermost edge of the geometry); and a transition region (see annotated Fig.) located between the plurality of interconnected first unit cells and the plurality of interconnected second unit cells and comprising a third plurality of struts connecting some of the solid representations of the implicit surface to some of the nodes among the plurality of nodes, wherein the transition region does not contain any instance of the base surface geometry or any instance of the base strut geometry (annotated fig. 4 shows the transition region between the first and second unit cells and comprising a third plurality of struts connecting some of the solid representations to some of the nodes, the transition region not containing any instance of the base surface or strut geometry, as this limitation is interpreted in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above; paragraph [0024] teaches “Heel section 41, midfoot section 42, and forefoot section 43 can be made by three-dimensional printing as an integral article of the three structures of sections 41, 42, and 43,” therein the transition region clearly connects the first and second unit cells).
Farris et al. does not teach wherein the implicit surface is a periodic implicit surface.
Attention is drawn to Laperriere et al., which teaches an analogous article of cushioning. Laperriere et al. teaches a three-dimensional mesh (fig. 32) comprising: a plurality of interconnected first unit cells, each interconnected first unit cell comprising a base surface geometry that comprises a solid representation of a periodic implicit surface that contacts solid representations of the implicit surface in at least two neighboring first unit cells (paragraph [0135] teaches “a 3D lattice structure that forms a triply periodic minimal surface based on a gyroid structure,” wherein annotated fig. 32 shows the lattice structure being made of a plurality of interconnected unit cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris et al. to include the teachings of Laperriere et al. such that the implicit surface is a periodic implicit surface so as to allow the first unit cells to be made lighter while still having a proper level of structural integrity and resilience (paragraph [0135], “Gyroid structures generally have exceptional strength properties at low densities, which means that structures such as shoulder caps, that have conventionally been made by molding, can potentially be made lighter while retaining a suitable level of structural integrity and resilience by utilizing additively-manufactured gyroid surface structures.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Farris et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 9, as discussed in the rejections above. Farris et al. further teaches wherein the transition region comprises a plurality of third unit cells (see annotated Fig.) , wherein each third unit cell comprises: a first side (see annotated Fig.) and a second side (see annotated Fig.), the first side being adjoined by one of the first unit cells and the second side being adjoined by one of the second unit cells (annotated fig. 4 shows the first side and second side being adjoined by the first and second unit cells, respectively); a first segment (see annotated Fig.) that comprises the first side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining first unit cell that comprises a side of the first unit (annotated fig. 4 shows the first segment comprising the first side and being identical to a segment of the adjoining first unit cell); a second segment that comprises the second side and is identical in structure to a segment of the adjoining second unit cell that comprises a side of the second unit cell (annotated fig. 4 shows the second segment comprising the second side and being identical to a segment of the adjoining second unit cell).
Regarding Claim 14, Farris et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 13, as discussed in the rejections above. Farris et al. further teaches wherein the third segment (see annotated Fig.) comprises a transition geometry, and the transition geometry includes first structures identical to portions of the base surface geometry and second structures identical to portions the base strut geometry (annotated fig. 4 shows the third segment comprising transition geometry with first and second structures being identical to the base surface and strut geometry).
Regarding Claim 15, Farris et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 14, as discussed in the rejections above. Farris et al. further teaches wherein the first structures are ribbons and the second structures are struts and inter-strut gaps (fig. 4 shows the first structures being ribbons of solid material and the second structures being inter-strut gaps).
PNG
media_image6.png
644
864
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al. (US 2016/0122493) in view of Laperriere et al. (US 2022/0142284), and further in view of Hettinga et al. (US 2022/0110407).
Regarding Claim 10, Farris et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 9, as discussed in the rejections above.
Farris et al. does not teach wherein the plurality of interconnected second unit cells forms a lattice having a first lattice shear modulus in a first direction and a second lattice shear modulus in a second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein the first lattice shear modulus is at least 10% greater than the second lattice shear modulus.
Attention is drawn to Hettinga et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Coonrod et al. teaches a midsole (300) for an article of footwear, the midsole comprising: a three dimensional lattice (320) comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells (322) (fig. 3 shows the lattice comprising unit cells (322)), each unit cell comprising a base strut geometry comprising a plurality of struts and a plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (paragraph [0110] teaches “The interconnected unit cells 322 include a plurality of struts 330 defining a three-dimensional shape of a respective unit cell 322. Each unit cell 322 may have a base geometry defined by the struts 330 of the unit cell 322”). Hettinga et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells forms a lattice having a first lattice shear modulus in a first direction and a second lattice shear modulus in a second direction opposite the first direction (paragraph [0113] “A mechanically anisotropic region of three-dimensional mesh 320 may have a first lattice shear modulus measured in a first direction and a second lattice shear modulus different from the first lattice shear modulus and measured in a second direction opposite to or orthogonal to the first direction.”), and wherein the first lattice shear modulus is at least 10% greater than the second lattice shear modulus (paragraph [0117] “In some embodiments, a second lattice shear modulus of a mechanically anisotropic region of three-dimensional mesh 320 may be greater than a first lattice shear modulus of the mechanically anisotropic region. In some embodiments, the second lattice shear modulus may be greater than the first lattice shear modulus by 10% or more,” wherein the first lattice shear modulus of Hettinga is considered equivalent to the instant second lattice shear modulus of the instant invention and the second lattice shear modulus of Hettinga is considered equivalent to the instant first lattice shear modulus of the instant invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris et al. to include the teachings of Hettinga such that the plurality of interconnected second unit cells forms a lattice having a first lattice shear modulus in a first direction and a second lattice shear modulus in a second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein the first lattice shear modulus is at least 10% greater than the second lattice shear modulus so as to provide at least a portion of the midsole with anisotropic properties (paragraph [0123] “The different lattice shear moduli measured in opposite and/or orthogonal directions provides one or more regions of three-dimensional mesh 320 with anisotropic properties as discussed herein”).
Regarding Claim 11, Farris et al. teaches all of the limitations of the midsole of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above.
Farris et al. does not teach wherein each second unit cell comprises: an upper-forward quadrant and a lower-rearward quadrant, each of which contains thin struts and thick struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes; and an upper-rearward quadrant and a lower-forward quadrant, each of which contains thin struts, thick struts, and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a second geometry, wherein the thick struts and thin struts are arranged differently in the first geometry than in the second geometry.
Attention is drawn to Hettinga et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Coonrod et al. teaches a midsole (300) for an article of footwear, the midsole comprising: a three dimensional lattice (320) comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells (322) (fig. 3 shows the lattice comprising unit cells (322)), each unit cell comprising a base strut geometry comprising a plurality of struts and a plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected (paragraph [0110] teaches “The interconnected unit cells 322 include a plurality of struts 330 defining a three-dimensional shape of a respective unit cell 322. Each unit cell 322 may have a base geometry defined by the struts 330 of the unit cell 322”), and wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells forms a lattice having a first lattice shear modulus in a first direction and a second lattice shear modulus in a second direction opposite the first direction (paragraph [0113] “A mechanically anisotropic region of three-dimensional mesh 320 may have a first lattice shear modulus measured in a first direction and a second lattice shear modulus different from the first lattice shear modulus and measured in a second direction opposite to or orthogonal to the first direction.”), and wherein the first lattice shear modulus is at least 10% greater than the second lattice shear modulus (paragraph [0117] “In some embodiments, a second lattice shear modulus of a mechanically anisotropic region of three-dimensional mesh 320 may be greater than a first lattice shear modulus of the mechanically anisotropic region. In some embodiments, the second lattice shear modulus may be greater than the first lattice shear modulus by 10% or more,” wherein the first lattice shear modulus of Hettinga is considered equivalent to the instant second lattice shear modulus of the instant invention and the second lattice shear modulus of Hettinga is considered equivalent to the instant first lattice shear modulus of the instant invention). Hettinga et al. further teaches wherein each second unit cell comprises: an upper-forward quadrant (see annotated Fig.) and a lower-rearward quadrant (see annotated Fig.), each of which contains thin struts and thick struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes (fig. 6a shows the unit cells comprising thin and thick struts in every quadrant’ paragraph [0192] teaches “3-D printing a set of interconnected unit cells 322 may include printing struts 330 having first effective diameter 331 and printing struts 330 having second effective diameter 333 different from first effective diameter 331,” which would clearly result in all four quadrants having both thick and thin struts); and an upper-rearward quadrant (see annotated Fig.) and a lower-forward quadrant, each of which contains thin struts, thick struts, and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a second geometry (fig. 6a shows the unit cells comprising thin and thick struts in every quadrant), wherein the thick struts and thin struts are arranged differently in the first geometry than in the second geometry (paragraph [0174] teaches “In some embodiments, the number of forwardly-oriented struts may be greater than the number of rearwardly-oriented struts” and paragraph [0177] teaches “In some embodiments, the number of medially-oriented struts may be greater than the number of laterally-oriented struts,” therein the first geometry could clearly be different than the second geometry so as to achieve the desired shear (see paragraph [0176] and [0178])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris et al to include the teachings of Hettinga et al. such that each second unit cell comprises: an upper-forward quadrant and a lower-rearward quadrant, each of which contains thin struts and thick struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes; and an upper-rearward quadrant and a lower-forward quadrant, each of which contains thin struts, thick struts, and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a second geometry, wherein the thick struts and thin struts are arranged differently in the first geometry than in the second geometry so as to achieve the desired shear among the second unit cells (paragraph [0176] “In embodiments with a smaller number of forwardly-oriented struts, unit cell 900 may have a shear modulus measured in a forward longitudinal direction 350 that is greater than a lattice shear modulus measured in a rearward longitudinal direction 350” and paragraph [0178], “In embodiments with a larger number of medially-oriented struts, unit cell 900 may have a shear modulus measured in a medial transverse direction 352 that is less than a lattice shear modulus measured in a lateral transverse direction 352.”).
PNG
media_image7.png
598
818
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kormann et al. (US 2016/0051009) in view of Coonrod et al. (US 2022/0110408).
Regarding Claim 17, Kormann et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above. Kormann et al. further teaches wherein each unit cell comprises: a plurality of struts (144) defining a three-dimensional shape and a plurality of nodes (140, 142) at which two or more struts are connected (paragraph [0126] teaches “nodes 140 are shown at a part of the lattice structure where eight supporting members 144 converge to form node 140. In contrast, as depicted, nodes 142 are formed at the convergence of four supporting members 144”; fig. 3a shows each unit cell comprising a plurality of struts (144) and nodes (140, 142)).
Kormann et al. does not explicitly teach each unit cell having an upper-forward quadrant and a lower-rearward quadrant, each of struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a first geometry; and an upper-rearward quadrant and a lower-forward quadrant, each of which contains struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a second geometry that differs from the first geometry.
Attention is drawn to Coonrod et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Coonrod et al. teaches a midsole (140) for an article of footwear, the midsole comprising: a three dimensional lattice (160) comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells (169) (fig. 1 shows the lattice comprising unit cells (169). Coonrod et al. further teaches wherein each unit cell comprises: a plurality of struts defining a three-dimensional shape and a plurality of nodes at which two or more struts are connected (paragraph [0078] teaches “Mesh component 160 may include a plurality of struts 166 connected to one another at nodes 168 as described herein. Struts 166 connected to one another at nodes 168 of mesh component 160 can define a plurality of interconnected unit cells 169 for mesh component 160.”; fig. 30A also shows an isolated unit cell (3000) made of nodes (2930) and struts (2940)); an upper-forward quadrant (2920) and a lower-rearward quadrant (2926), each of struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a first geometry; and an upper-rearward quadrant (2922) and a lower-forward quadrant (2924), each of which contains struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a second geometry that differs from the first geometry (paragraph [0141] teaches “FIGS. 30A and 30B show a lattice cell 2900 populated with soft sub-cells 2930 and stiff sub-cells 2940 for a unit cell 3000 according to some embodiments. The unit cell 3000 shown includes: (i) two soft sub-cells 2930 located side-by-side in the upper-forward quadrant 2920, (ii) two stiff sub-cells 2940 located side-by-side in the upper-rearward quadrant 2922, (iii) two stiff sub-cells 2940 located in the lower-forward quadrant 2924, and (iv) two soft sub-cells 2930 located in the lower-rearward quadrant 2926,” wherein the stiff sub cells have a first geometry different than a second geometry of the soft sub cells, as shown in figs. 32A-C (soft sub cells) and figs. 33A-C (stiff sub cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kormann et al. to include the teachings of Coonrod et al. such that each unit cell has an upper-forward quadrant and a lower-rearward quadrant, each of struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a first geometry; and an upper-rearward quadrant and a lower-forward quadrant, each of which contains struts among the plurality of struts and nodes among the plurality of nodes arranged in a second geometry that differs from the first geometry so as to create a mesh that is predisposed to deform forwards during use (paragraph [0141], “This arrangement of soft and stiff sub-cells can result in a mesh component that is predisposed to deform forwards (i.e., in forward longitudinal direction 10) when a sole including the mesh component contacts the ground.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Kormann et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 17, as discussed in the rejections above. Kormann et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of struts (144) comprises thin struts, each of which has a first effective diameter along its length, and a plurality of thick struts, each of which has a second effective diameter along its length, the second effective diameter being greater than the first effective diameter (paragraph [0144] teaches “the thickness of the supporting members may be increased and/or decreased in specific areas depending on the loading requirements for the sole.” and paragraph [0154] teaches “FIGS. 8-9 depict lattice 180 integrally formed with rim 110. As discussed herein, lattice 180 may be designed such that support members 144 located in high strain areas may be, for example, thickened to increase the strength of the lattice in those areas,” therein there are clearly a plurality of thin struts and a plurality of thin struts, the plurality of thick struts clearly having a diameter that is greater than the first diameter of the thin struts).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kormann et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 17, as discussed in the rejections above. Kormann et al. further teaches wherein the skin (122-125) comprises beams (see annotated Fig.) that extend across multiple of the skin cells (figs 1a and 3a show the skin (122-125) comprising beams that extend across multiple of the skin cells).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kormann et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 19, as discussed in the rejections above. Kormann et al. further teaches wherein the skin (122-125) includes a convergence line (see annotated Fig.) at which some of the beams terminate (annotated fig. 1a shows a convergence line at which some of the beams terminate).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 13, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant submits that Perrault et al. does not teach a skin cells having struts and nodes, as struts are known to be narrow, elongate structures, and further that struts cannot be ribbons. Examiner disagrees, and submits that while the drawings show the struts being long and narrow, there is no teaching or disclosure that struts must be long and narrow. Further, “long” and “narrow” are both relative terms that have not been defined by (or used in) the instant specification. In regards to the “ribbon-like” descriptor, Examiner notes that it was not asserted that the strut was a ribbon, just that it was ribbon like. Nevertheless, such language has been removed from the rejection. Further, while Perrault et al. does not explicitly use the terms “Strut” and “node,” the structure still exists and satisfies the claim limitations. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is maintained.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant submits that Kormann et al. does not teach a ground facing side defined by the three-dimensional lattice, wherein a lower edge of the skin defines a portion of a border of the ground facing side and an outsole attached to the ground facing side of the midsole. Specifically, Applicant submits that the midsole cannot be modified such that the lattice forms the ground facing side rather than the struts (122-125) that make up the skin cells. Examiner disagrees, and submits that fig. 1D shows structures 160 that form an outsole, as Kormann teaches these structures protrude downwardly from the sole and increase traction for the wearer (paragraph [0116]). Further, Examiner agrees that the skin cells (122-125) form a portion of the ground facing side, but not the entire ground facing side. Between the skin cells, the lattice clearly forms the ground facing side, and as it is not claimed that the 3D lattice entirely defines the ground facing side of the midsole, this claim limitation is met by Kormann. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Kormann is maintained.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant submits that Farris does not teach wherein the base strut geometry comprises struts located at a position within the base strut geometry that is the same as the position of one of the edges within the base surface geometry, as the annotated fig. shows only one strut. Examiner disagrees, and submits that Farris teaches a ribbon edge located at an edge of the geometry and a strut located at an edge of the geometry, therein the edge and strut are at the same position in the base geometry, with only one example of such being shown in the annotated figure. Annotating each matching strut/edge would have created a figure that is to cluttered to clearly understand, and further the rejection notes that struts (in the plural) are located at a position that is the same as the position of the edges. As such, the rejection over Farris is maintained. Applicant further submits that this modification of Farris with the teachings of LaPierre would result in a midsole that does not teach the remaining limitations of the Claim, namely that the struts and edges would no longer be aligned. Examiner disagrees, and submits that there is no basis for assuming that modifying Farris such that they are solid representations of a periodic implicit surface would result in the unalignment of the edges/struts. There is no teachings that this modification would change the scale of the repeating first and second unit cells, which would be the reason for misalignment. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Farris in view of LaPierre is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732