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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 10/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-25, 27-30, 32-34, 36-39, and 41-44 are presented.
Claim 28 remains withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 21-25, 27, 29-30, 32-34, 36-39, and 41-44 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 10/30/2025 are fully considered.
Regarding 103 Rejections (p. 7-10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment of claim 43 and the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment of claim 44 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 43-44 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 43 recites “the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment”, which is new matter. Although para [0070] states lateral and medial “segments 714 and 716 may generally be similar to one another, but the anterior most portions of the segments 714 and 716 may be offset from one another”, it does not state an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment in combination with the lateral segment and medial segment having a same area. It is noted para 70 states lateral and medial segments are “generally...similar to one another” but does not state they have a same area.
Claim 44 recites “the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment”, which is new matter. Although para [0070] states lateral and medial “segments 714 and 716 may generally be similar to one another, but the anterior most portions of the segments 714 and 716 may be offset from one another”, it does not state an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment in combination with the lateral segment and medial segment having a same area. It is noted para 70 states lateral and medial segments are “generally...similar to one another” but does not state they have a same area.
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) 33-34, 36, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [McInnis, US 2010/0251567, newly cited].
Regarding claim 33:
McInnis discloses (Figs. 1-5 and 10):
A sole structure (the sole structure of Fig. 2; no specific numeral provided for the entire sole structure; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) for an article of footwear 100, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below) and a heel region (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below); a chassis plate 120 disposed in the forefoot region, the chassis plate having an oblong shape (Fig. 2); a cleated (“formed with...cleats on bottom surface 225”; para 56) outsole plate 135 extending from the forefoot region to the heel region, the cleated outsole plate including a receptacle (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below) forming a depression in the cleated outsole plate, wherein the cleated outsole plate is disposed below the chassis plate forming a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure (Figs. 1-2); and a fluid-filled bladder 200 disposed within the receptacle between the chassis plate and the cleated outsole plate (Figs. 1-2), wherein the fluid-filled bladder comprises a plurality of radially exterior segments (see lateral, medial, anterior, and posterior segments thereof in annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below; it is noted the segments identified hereinbelow are radially exterior in that the four segments each diverge from a central region of the bladder and are each provided in a position or a direction of a radius extending from a central region of the bladder; it is noted the term radial means “Diverging from a central point or region like rays or the radii of a circle; having the position or direction of a radius; located or measured on or along a radius”; Oxford English Dictionary, “radial (adj.), sense 2.a,” March 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9752437882) that define a perimeter of the fluid-filled bladder, and wherein the plurality of radially exterior segments comprise a lateral segment (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below), a medial segment (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below), an anterior segment (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below), and a posterior segment (see annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below), wherein each radially exterior segment has a curved shape (as in annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1290
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34:
McInnis discloses The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
McInnis further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the cleated outsole plate includes one or more traction elements (i.e. the “cleats on bottom surface 225...such tread patterns...enhance traction”; para 56).
Regarding claim 36:
McInnis discloses The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
McInnis further discloses An article of footwear 100 comprising the sole structure of claim 33.
Regarding claim 44:
McInnis discloses The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
McInnis further discloses wherein the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment (as in annotated Figs. 2 and 10 – a presented in above addressing of claim 33).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Bruce, US 2014/0075799; provided on the IDS of 07/12/2023].
Regarding claim 33:
Bruce discloses (Figs. 1A-1E):
A sole structure 100 for an article of footwear 300, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below) and a heel region (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below); a chassis plate 150 disposed in the forefoot region, the chassis plate 150 having an oblong shape (Figs. 1-2); a cleated “surface 110 a...include...cleats”; para 45) outsole plate 110 extending from the forefoot region to the heel region, the cleated outsole plate including a receptacle 112 forming a depression in the cleated outsole plate, wherein the cleated outsole plate 110 is disposed below the chassis plate 150 forming a ground-contacting surface 110a of the sole structure; and a fluid-filled bladder 130 disposed within the receptacle (para 45; Fig. 1D) between the chassis plate 150 and the cleated outsole plate 110, wherein the fluid-filled bladder comprises a plurality of radially exterior segments (see lateral, medial, anterior, and posterior segments thereof in annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below; it is noted the segments identified hereinbelow are radially exterior in that the four segments each diverge from a central region of the bladder and are each provided in a position or a direction of a radius extending from a central region of the bladder; it is noted the term radial means “Diverging from a central point or region like rays or the radii of a circle; having the position or direction of a radius; located or measured on or along a radius”; Oxford English Dictionary, “radial (adj.), sense 2.a,” March 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9752437882) that define a perimeter of the fluid-filled bladder, and wherein the plurality of radially exterior segments comprise a lateral segment (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below), a medial segment (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below), an anterior segment (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below), and a posterior segment (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below), wherein each radially exterior segment has a curved shape (as in annotated Figs. 1A-1B – a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1251
1196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34:
Bruce discloses The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Bruce further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the cleated outsole plate includes one or more traction elements (i.e. the “cleats” of para 45).
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) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hwang, KR-20200035599-A, newly cited] in view of [Lebo, US 2006/0277799, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Hwang discloses (Figs. 1-4):
A sole structure (“shoe sole”; para 19; no specific numeral is provided for the entire sole structure; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) for an article of footwear (para 19), the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) and a heel region (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below);
an outsole plate 100, including a top surface (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below), extending from the forefoot region to the heel region (as in annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below), the outsole plate including a receptacle (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) disposed in the top surface, wherein the outsole plate is configured to be disposed an insole (para 21; Figs. 1-3) and wherein the outsole plate includes a bottom surface (see annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below) forming a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure (as in annotated Figs. 2-3 – a below wherein it is noted the surface identified is capable of contacting a ground); and
a cushioning element 200 configured to be disposed between an insole and the outsole plate (para 21; Figs. 1-3), wherein the cushioning element is asymmetrical (Figs. 1-2) about a central axis of the cushioning element which extends between distal and posterior ends of the cushioning element (Figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
894
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hwang Figs. 1-4 does not expressly disclose:
a rigid chassis plate including a first surface configured to be coupled with an upper of the article of footwear and a second surface disposed opposite the first surface;
wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the rigid chassis plate; and
a cushioning element disposed between the rigid chassis plate and the outsole plate, wherein the second surface of the rigid chassis plate contacts each of the cushioning element, and the top surface of the outsole plate.
In further view of Hwang:
The sole structure of Hwang is configured to be provided under an insole “100 of the present invention is configured to be positioned at the bottom of an insole (not shown) to provide a stable fit sensation”; para 21. Looking to the drawings of Hwang: the cushioning element and the top surface of the outsole plate present a combined surface that is configured such that an insole could be provided thereatop (Figs. 1 and 3).
Hwang does not expressly disclose the extent of the “insole (not shown)”, whether or not it contacts the cushioning element and the outsole plate, and whether it is a chassis plate or a rigid chassis plate. However, one of ordinary skill would have expected the “stable fit sensation” described by Hwang to be provided by a rigid chassis plate disposed and contacting as claimed; however, Hwang is silent as to the specific features of a rigid chassis plate including a first surface configured to be coupled with an upper of the article of footwear and a second surface disposed opposite the first surface; wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the rigid chassis plate; and a cushioning element disposed between the rigid chassis plate and the outsole plate, wherein the second surface of the rigid chassis plate contacts each of the cushioning element, and the top surface of the outsole plate.
However, Lebo teaches a rigid insole chassis plate 40 wherein said rigid insole chassis plate 40 that is provided atop and contacting (Fig. 3) a surface formed by the combined “structural material 62” and “cushioning material 64” (Figs. 1-3). In Lebo, the rigid insole chassis plate 40 comprises a first surface (i.e. the surface facing upward in Fig. 3) that is configured to be coupled to another structure—including but not limited to additional footwear structure such as an upper; the rigid insole chassis plate 40 further comprises a second surface (i.e. the surface contacting 62 and 64; Fig. 3); the second surface contacting each of a cushioning element 64 and a top surface of a “structural material 62” abutting the cushioning element (Fig. 3). Lebo further teaches “the insole is often of a rigid material so that it may provide adequate structural integrity and be capable of being stitched” (para 7); “insole 40 is made of a rigid material having sufficient structural integrity to provide an anchoring mechanism to which the upper and/or outsole 80 is secured” (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 Hwang such that its insole (i.e. the insole of para 4 of Hwang, which is “not shown”) is a rigid chassis plate including a first surface configured to be coupled with an upper of the article of footwear and a second surface disposed opposite the first surface; wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the rigid chassis plate; and a cushioning element disposed between the rigid chassis plate and the outsole plate, wherein the second surface of the rigid chassis plate contacts each of the cushioning element, and the top surface of the outsole plate in order to provide structural integrity and/or to readily permit anchoring of additional footwear structure, including a footwear upper, to the sole structure, as suggested by Lebo (paras 7 and 36).
Regarding claim 23:
Hwang in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Hwang further discloses wherein a top surface of the cushioning element is flush with the top surface of the outsole plate when the cushioning element is disposed within the receptacle of the outsole plate (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hwang, KR-20200035599-A] and [Lebo, US 2006/0277799] as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of [Rathgeber, DE-8520936-U1].
Regarding claim 24:
Hwang in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Hwang does not expressly disclose wherein the outsole plate includes: a plurality of traction elements disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
However and in further view of Hwang:
In Hwang, a singular traction element 300 is disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
Rathgeber teaches plural traction elements 6, 7 disposed on a bottom surface of an outsole plate 1. Rathgeber further teaches the two traction elements are “a Heel part 6 and a front part 7” (p. 3 line 17).
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 Hwang such that its outsole plate includes plural traction elements disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate in order to yield the predictable result of an outsole plate whose plural traction elements are configured to provide traction for the wearer; one of ordinary skill would have expected the provision of traction to occur whether there were a singular traction element as in Hwang or whether there were plural traction elements as in the modified Hwang.
Regarding claim 25:
Hwang in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 24, as set forth above.
The modified Hwang further meets the limitation wherein the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded into the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
(Hwang discloses the singular traction element 300 of Hwang is “formed on a lower portion” of the outsole plate (para 53); and the modified Hwang comprises the plural traction elements (see above treatment of claim 24) such that the plural traction elements are also so formed; accordingly, each of the plurality of traction elements is integral with the outsole plate such that the limitation is met; it is noted the term “are integrally molded” is treated as a product-by-process limitation in that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a process that is silent as to whether molding is utilized. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2113 which states in relevant part “Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.”)
Claim(s) 21-23, 27, 29-30, 32, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Allen, US 5,313,717, newly cited] in view of [Lebo, US 2006/0277799, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Allen discloses (Figs. 1-5):
A sole structure (the “sole”; col. 11 line 16; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) for an article of footwear 22, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 1-5 – a below) and a heel region (Figs. 1-5);
a chassis plate 102 including a first surface (see annotated Figs. 1-5 – a below) configured to be coupled with an upper of the article of footwear (it is noted the first surface is capable of coupling to a plurality of structure(s) including an upper of an article of footwear) and a second surface (see annotated Figs. 1-5 – a below) disposed opposite the first surface;
an outsole plate 84, including a top surface (see annotated Figs. 1-5 – a below), extending from the forefoot region to the heel region (as in annotated Figs. 1-5 – a below), the outsole plate including a receptacle 82 disposed in the top surface, wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the chassis plate (Figs. 1-5) and wherein the outsole plate includes a bottom surface (see annotated Figs. 1-5 – a below) forming a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure; and
a cushioning element 20 disposed between the chassis plate and the outsole plate (Figs. 1-5), wherein the second surface of the chassis plate contacts (Figs. 4-5) each of the cushioning element, and the top surface of the outsole plate, wherein the cushioning element is asymmetrical about a central axis of the cushioning element which extends between distal and posterior ends of the cushioning element (Figs. 1-5).
PNG
media_image4.png
902
740
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allen does not expressly disclose the chassis plate is a rigid chassis plate.
However, Lebo teaches a rigid insole chassis plate 40 wherein said rigid insole chassis plate 40 that is provided atop and contacting (Fig. 3) a surface formed by the combined “structural material 62” and “cushioning material 64” (Figs. 1-3). In Lebo, the rigid insole chassis plate 40 comprises a first surface (i.e. the surface facing upward in Fig. 3) that is configured to be coupled to another structure—including but not limited to additional footwear structure such as an upper; the rigid insole chassis plate 40 further comprises a second surface (i.e. the surface contacting 62 and 64; Fig. 3); the second surface contacting each of a cushioning element 64 and a top surface of a “structural material 62” abutting the cushioning element (Fig. 3). Lebo further teaches “the insole is often of a rigid material so that it may provide adequate structural integrity and be capable of being stitched” (para 7); “insole 40 is made of a rigid material having sufficient structural integrity to provide an anchoring mechanism to which the upper and/or outsole 80 is secured” (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 Allen such that its chassis plate is a rigid chassis plate in order to provide structural integrity and/or to readily permit anchoring of additional footwear structure, including a footwear upper, to the sole structure, as suggested by Lebo (paras 7 and 36).
Regarding claim 22:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Allen further discloses wherein the cushioning element includes a fluid-filled bladder 24.
Regarding claim 23:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Allen further discloses wherein a top surface of the cushioning element is flush with the top surface of the outsole plate when the cushioning element is disposed within the receptacle of the outsole plate (see Fig. 5 in annotated Figs. 1-5 – a presented in above treatment of claim 21).
Regarding claim 27:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Allen Figs. 1-5 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 (Figs. 1-3).
Allen Figs. 1-5 does not expressly disclose wherein an area of the cushioning element is less than about 70% of the anterior area.
However and in further view of Allen:
Allen Figs. 15-16 teaches a “further embodiment” wherein a cushioning element is provided only in a forefoot region and the limitation appears to be met in that only the “first...forefoot bladder...142” is provided, with the “bladders 26, 28,...32 removed” (col. 15 lines 18-26). Allen teaches the embodiment of Figs. 15-16 is configured for “maintaining the cushioning and support for the foot in this area...distributing the force of footstep over...the bottom of the foot and decreasing the shock of foot impact” (col. 15 line 61 – col. 16 line 3).
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 Allen such that its cushioning element is only provided in the forefoot region, as in Allen Figs. 15-16, and further wherein an area of the cushioning element is less than about 70% of the anterior area, as appears to be the case in Allen Figs. 15-16, in order to provide cushioning and/or support and/or decreasing impact and/or shock over an area of a wearer’s foot that is less than about 70% of the area of the wearer’s foot that is forward of a midpoint of the wearer’s foot for a wearer who prefers the degree and/or extent of such cushioning, support, impact reduction, and/or shock reduction afforded thereby.
Regarding claim 29:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
The modified Allen further meets the limitation wherein the rigid chassis plate has an oblong shape (col. 11 lines 44-45; Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 30:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
The modified Allen further meets the limitation wherein the rigid chassis plate is disposed in the forefoot region (col. 11 lines 44-45; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
The modified Allen further meets the limitation An article of footwear 22 comprising the sole structure of claim 21.
Regarding claim 41:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Allen further discloses wherein the cushioning element comprises a plurality of radially exterior segments that define a perimeter of the cushioning element, and wherein the plurality of radially exterior segments comprise a lateral segment, a medial segment, an anterior segment, and a posterior segment, wherein each radially exterior segment has a curved shape (see annotated Fig. 2 – b detail below).
PNG
media_image5.png
479
791
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 41, as set forth above.
Allen further discloses wherein the anterior segment has an area larger than an area of the posterior segment (as in annotated Fig. 2 – b detail presented in above addressing of claim 41).
Regarding claim 43:
Allen in view of Lebo teach The sole structure of claim 42, as set forth above.
Allen further discloses wherein the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment (as in annotated Fig. 2 – b detail presented in above addressing of claim 41).
Claim(s) 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Bruce, US 2014/0075799].
Regarding claim 36:
Bruce discloses the sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Bruce Figs. 1A-1E does not expressly disclose An article of footwear comprising the sole structure of claim 33.
However and in further view of Bruce:
Bruce teaches the sole structure of Figs. 1A-1E is appropriate for combining with an upper to yield an article of footwear (para 66).
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 it is combined with an upper and yields An article of footwear comprising the sole structure of claim 33 in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear whose sole structure is configured to underlie and protect the bottom portion of a wearer’s foot and whose upper is configured to cover and protect portions of the wearer’s foot above the bottom portion of his foot.
Regarding claim 37:
Bruce discloses the sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Bruce Figs. 1A-1E does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate is disposed solely in the forefoot region.
However and in further view of Bruce:
Bruce Figs. 5A-5D teaches providing a pair of chassis plates: “a frontfoot rigid plate member 502”, which is oblong (Fig. 5A), “and a separate rearfoot rigid plate member 504” (para 76).
Bruce further teaches “Providing a forefoot rigid plate component 502 separate from the rearfoot rigid plate component 504 can enhance the flexibility of the overall sole structure 500 and at least somewhat decouple flexion and motion of the rearfoot area from the forefoot area. This decoupling can improve the overall comfort and feel of the shoe as the wearer takes a step (and weight shifts from the heel to the forefoot) and provide a more natural motion and feel” (para 78).
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 Figs. 1A-1E such that it is provided with, instead of the singular chassis plate 150, provided with an oblong frontfoot chassis plate solely in the forefoot region and also with a rearfoot chassis plate solely in the heel region in order to enhance the flexibility of the overall sole structure; decouple flexion and/or motion of the rearfoot area from the forefoot area; improve the overall comfort and/or feel of the shoe as the wearer takes a step (and weight shifts from the heel to the forefoot) and/or provide a more natural motion and feel, as taught by Bruce (para 78). In adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the chassis plate (i.e. the frontfoot chassis plate) is disposed solely in the forefoot region as claimed.
Regarding claim 38:
Bruce discloses the sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Bruce Figs. 1A-1E does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate is disposed solely in the forefoot region and a midfoot region.
However and in further view of Bruce:
Bruce Figs. 5A-5D teaches providing a pair of chassis plates: “a frontfoot rigid plate member 502”, which is oblong (Fig. 5A), “and a separate rearfoot rigid plate member 504” (para 76).
Attention is drawn to Bruce Fig. 5A which shows frontfoot rigid plate member 502 as being provided close enough to a midfoot region of the shoe sole that one of ordinary skill would look to Fig. 5A and expect that the frontfoot rigid plate member 502 is either disposed solely in the forefoot region or disposed solely in the forefoot region and also a midfoot region.
Bruce further teaches “Providing a forefoot rigid plate component 502 separate from the rearfoot rigid plate component 504 can enhance the flexibility of the overall sole structure 500 and at least somewhat decouple flexion and motion of the rearfoot area from the forefoot area. This decoupling can improve the overall comfort and feel of the shoe as the wearer takes a step (and weight shifts from the heel to the forefoot) and provide a more natural motion and feel” (para 78).
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 Figs. 1A-1E such that it is provided with, instead of the singular chassis plate 150, provided with an oblong frontfoot chassis plate solely in the forefoot region and a midfoot region; and also with a rearfoot chassis plate solely in the heel region in order to enhance the flexibility of the overall sole structure; decouple flexion and/or motion of the rearfoot area from the forefoot area; improve the overall comfort and/or feel of the shoe as the wearer takes a step (and weight shifts from the heel to the forefoot) and/or provide a more natural motion and feel, as taught by Bruce (para 78). In adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the chassis plate (i.e. the frontfoot chassis plate) is disposed solely in the forefoot region and a midfoot region as claimed.
Regarding claim 39:
Bruce discloses the sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Bruce Figs. 1A-1E does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate is not disposed in the heel region.
However and in further view of Bruce:
Bruce Figs. 5A-5D teaches providing a pair of chassis plates: “a frontfoot rigid plate member 502”, which is oblong (Fig. 5A), “and a separate rearfoot rigid plate member 504” (para 76).
Bruce further teaches “Providing a forefoot rigid plate component 502 separate from the rearfoot rigid plate component 504 can enhance the flexibility of the overall sole structure 500 and at least somewhat decouple flexion and motion of the rearfoot area from the forefoot area. This decoupling can improve the overall comfort and feel of the shoe as the wearer takes a step (and weight shifts from the heel to the forefoot) and provide a more natural motion and feel” (para 78).
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 Figs. 1A-1E such that it is provided with, instead of the singular chassis plate 150, provided with an oblong frontfoot chassis plate solely in the forefoot region and also with a rearfoot chassis plate solely in the heel region in order to enhance the flexibility of the overall sole structure; decouple flexion and/or motion of the rearfoot area from the forefoot area; improve the overall comfort and/or feel of the shoe as the wearer takes a step (and weight shifts from the heel to the forefoot) and/or provide a more natural motion and feel, as taught by Bruce (para 78). In adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the chassis plate (i.e. the frontfoot chassis plate) is not disposed in the heel region insofar as it would be disposed solely in the forefoot region.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Bruce, US 2014/0075799] in view of [Buttigieg, US 6,519,873, newly cited].
Regarding claim 44:
Bruce discloses The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Bruce as does not expressly disclose wherein the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment.
Buttigieg teaches (Figs. 8A-8B) a fluid-filled bladder (the combined 1, 2, and 19) for shoe sole “cushioning” (col. 1 line 51) comprising a curved lateral segment (of the lateralmost of 2) and a curved medial segment (of the medialmost of 2) wherein, while not expressly to scale, the lateral segment and the medial segment appear to have a same area (Fig. 8B), but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment (Fig. 8B).
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 the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment in order to yield the predictable result of affording cushioning over the same extent of a wearer’s medial and lateral sides of his foot and at a portion of his lateral foot that is more anterior than a portion of his medial foot for a wearer who prefers the cushioning afforded by such an arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights