DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-25, 27-30, 32-33, 36-39, and 41-48 are presented.Claim 28 remains withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 21-25, 27, 29-30, 32-33, 36-39, and 41-48 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks of 08/04/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Drawing and Claim Objections (see first page of “REMARKS” of 08/04/2026): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. The drawings were objected to for not showing every feature specified in the claims (see p. 2-3 of the Office action of 05/04/2026). Claims 43 and 44 are amended in the reply such that they no longer recite the features that necessitated the Drawings objections of 05/04/2026. Accordingly, the Drawings objection set forth in the previous Office action is moot.
Regarding Section 112 Rejections (see second page of “REMARKS” of 08/04/2026): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon review of the amended claims, Applicant’s remarks, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 112 rejections applied in the previous Office action are overcome. However, it is noted the amendment has necessitated a new 35 USC 112 rejection; see rejection below.
Regarding Section 102 and 103 Rejections (see 3rd-6th page of “REMARKS” of 08/04/2026): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded”. However, it is not clear whether “the plurality of traction elements” refers to the “one or more traction elements” introduced in claim 21 line 10; the “plurality of traction elements” introduced in claim 21 line 11; and/or the “plurality of traction elements” introduced in claim 24 line 2. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation “wherein the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded” is interpreted as if it is referring only to those “plurality of traction elements” introduced in claim 24 line 2.
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) 21, 24, 27, 29-30, 32, 41-43, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Schiller, US 2016/0286905, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Schiller discloses (Figs. 1-7):
A sole structure (elements thereof identified hereinbelow) for an article of footwear 10, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region 18 and a heel region 20;
a rigid (“rigid”; para 71) chassis plate 16 including a first surface (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) configured to be coupled with an upper (first surface is capable of further attachment of additional structure thereto including to an upper) of the article of footwear and a second surface (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) disposed opposite the first surface; an outsole plate 42, 46 (i.e. the combined 42 and 46), including a top surface (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below), extending from the forefoot region to the heel region (Fig. 4; para 64), the outsole plate including a receptacle (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) disposed in the top surface, wherein the receptacle includes a ground-facing surface (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below), wherein the outsole plate includes one or more traction elements 514 extending from the ground-facing surface of the receptacle (as in annotated Fig. 5 – a below) and a plurality of traction elements 46 surrounding (paras 64-65; Figs. 1-5) the ground-facing surface of the receptacle, wherein the outsole plate is disposed below the rigid chassis plate (Figs. 1-5) and wherein the outsole plate includes a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) forming a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure; and a cushioning (“configured to compress...absorb...energy from...compression force” (para 74) such that element 74 is a cushioning element) element 74 disposed between the rigid chassis plate and the outsole plate (Figs. 1-5), wherein the second surface of the rigid chassis plate contacts each of the cushioning element, and the top surface of the outsole plate (as in annotated Fig. 5 – a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses wherein the outsole plate includes a plurality of traction elements 46 disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
(In Schiller, numerous traction elements 46 are provided such that a first plurality is surrounding the ground-facing surface of the receptacle as set forth in above addressing of claim 21 and yet another plurality is disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole plate.)
Regarding claim 27:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller 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. 1-8), and wherein an area of the cushioning element is less than about 70% of the anterior area (Figs. 1-8 and wherein the cushioning element 74 is as explained in above treatment of claim 21 (i.e. provided in recess 62 such that its area is less than about 70% of the anterior area; refer particularly to Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 29:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses wherein the rigid chassis plate 16 has an oblong shape (Figs. 1-4 and 8).
Regarding claim 30:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses wherein the rigid chassis plate 16 is disposed in the forefoot region (Figs. 1-4 and 8).
Regarding claim 32:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses An article of footwear 10 comprising the sole structure of claim 21.
Regarding claim 41:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller 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. 7 – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 41, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses wherein the anterior segment has an area larger than an area of the posterior segment (as in annotated Fig. 7 – b presented in above treatment of claim 41).
Regarding claim 43:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 42, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses wherein the lateral segment and the medial segment have similar outer extending dimensions (as in annotated Fig. 7 – b presented in above treatment of claim 41), but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment (as in annotated Fig. 7 – b presented in above treatment of claim 41).
Regarding claim 48:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller further discloses wherein the one or more traction elements extending from the ground-facing surface of the receptacle are fewer in number than the plurality of traction elements surrounding the ground-facing surface of the receptacle (Figs. 1-5).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Schiller, US 2016/0286905] in view of [Hoffberg, US 7,219,449, newly cited].
Regarding claim 22:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element includes a fluid-filled bladder.
However, Hoffberg teaches a cushioning element wherein “absorbed energy” is stored “as a compressed gas in a...bladder, or in a deformed solid, such as...a spring..., which can then be...released” (col. 19 lines 41-46); “the footwear includes an energy storage element, such as a compressed gas bladder, flexible or compressive spring”; col. 20 lines 1-3.
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 sole structure of Schiller such that its cushioning element is a fluid-filled bladder as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of energy absorption via the cushioning element.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Schiller, US 2016/0286905] in view of [Kilgore, US 2017/0071286, newly cited].
Regarding claim 22:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller does not expressly disclose wherein the cushioning element includes a fluid-filled bladder.
However, Hoffberg teaches a cushioning element includes a fluid filled bladder 124 whereby “The stiffness of the bladder 124 corresponds with its inflation pressure in the fluid chamber 172. A higher inflation pressure corresponds with a higher bending stiffness, and a lower inflation pressure corresponds with a lower bending stiffness. In the article of footwear 110, the inflation pressure is low enough to provide some compression in height of the fluid chamber 172 under loading, as indicated by the tension elements depicted in a somewhat slack state. The inflation pressure is also low enough to enable substantial bending along the length of the article of footwear 110 in the forefoot portion 134, allowing the extension portion 136 to remain in contact with the ground plane G at the third stage. The inflation pressure is great enough to act as a spring, resiliently returning the bladder 124 to its initial height prior to compression under loading. The bladder 124 bends at the forefoot portion 134...readily ...and does not pivot about the distal front end 140” a portion of the sole structure “stays in contact with the ground plane G over a...range of flex angles during dorsiflexion in a forward stride...By increasing the...range of flex angles and duration over which forces are reacted by the sole structure 112 are increased, and cushioning (i.e., deceleration of the ground impact force) is provided for a greater duration” (para 80).
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 Schiller such that its cushioning element includes a fluid-filled bladder in order prevent pivoting of the cushioning element during sole structure flexion for the purpose of maintaining contact between the sole structure and a ground surface when the sole structure is flexed, as suggested by Hoffberg (para 80).
and/or
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 Schiller such that its cushioning element is a fluid-filled bladder as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of energy absorption via the cushioning element.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Schiller, US 2016/0286905] in view of [Ryoo, US 2010/0058616, newly cited].
Regarding claim 23:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller does not expressly disclose wherein a top surface of the cushioning element is flush with the top surface of the outsole plate when the cushioning element is disposed within the receptacle of the outsole plate.
Ryoo teaches a sole structure 20, 24, 26 for an article of footwear (“shoe”; Abstract) wherein a top surface of a cushioning element 24 is flush (“flush with” paras 58-59) with a top surface of a plate 23 when the cushioning element 24 is disposed within a receptacle G of the plate (Figs. 1-4).
Ryoo further teaches “If the top surfaces of the block type elastic bodies 24 are flush with the top of the outer sole body 23, the initial shock exerted to the shoe is absorbed by the outer sole body 23 and the block type elastic bodies 24” (para 59).
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 Schiller such that a top surface of the cushioning element is flush with the top surface of the outsole plate when the cushioning element is disposed within the receptacle of the outsole plate in order to permit an initial shock upon the sole structure to be absorbed by a combination of the cushioning element and the outsole plate, as suggested by Ryoo (para 59).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Schiller, US 2016/0286905].
Regarding claim 25:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 24, as set forth above.
Schiller Figs. 1-5 does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of traction elements are integrally molded into the bottom surface of the outsole plate.
However and in further view of Schiller:
Schiller teaches “In some embodiments the ground surface traction elements 17 may include fixed or removable cleats or studs” (para 59) and as embodied in Fig. 12, a traction element 1110 is integrally molded (Fig. 12) into a bottom surface of an outsole plate 842 (Fig. 12).
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 Schiller Figs. 1-5 such that its plurality of traction elements are integrally molded into the bottom surface of the outsole plate in order to yield the predictable result of securing the plurality of traction elements onto the outsole plate in a fixed manner such that the plurality of traction elements are unlikely to be inadvertently and/or undesirably removed therefrom.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Schiller, US 2016/0286905] in view of [Soumokil, US 2012/0324762, newly cited].
Regarding claim 47:
Schiller discloses The sole structure of claim 21, as set forth above.
Schiller does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more traction elements extending from the ground-facing surface of the receptacle has a substantially crescent shape.
Soumokil teaches a sole structure (“outsole”; Abstract) wherein a traction element has a substantially crescent shape: “Traction element 35 be configured in one of any number of shapes that can provide traction, such as, for example,...crescents”; para 60.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole structure of Schiller such that at least one of the one or more traction elements extending from the ground-facing surface of the receptacle has a substantially crescent shape in order to provide traction via the shape thereof, as suggested by Soumokil (para 60).
Claim(s) 33, 36, and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Steinbeck, US 2019/0062614, newly cited].
Regarding claim 33:
Steinbeck discloses (Figs. 1-4):
A sole structure 14 for an article of footwear 10, the sole structure comprising:
a forefoot region 16 and a heel region 20;
a chassis plate 40 disposed in the forefoot region (Figs. 2-4), the chassis plate having an oblong shape (Fig. 2);
a cleated outsole plate 46 extending from the forefoot region to the heel region (Figs. 2-4), the cleated outsole plate including a receptacle (see annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below) forming a depression (see annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below) in the cleated outsole plate, wherein the receptacle includes a ground-facing surface (see annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), wherein the cleated outsole plate is disposed below the chassis plate (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below) forming a ground-contacting surface of the sole structure (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below); and a fluid-filled bladder 52 disposed within the receptacle (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below) between the chassis plate and the cleated outsole plate (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), wherein the fluid-filled bladder comprises a plurality of radially exterior segments (see lateral, medial, anterior, and posterior segments thereof in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below wherein it is noted each of the identified exterior segments is radially arranged about a center of the fluid-filled bladder) that define a perimeter of the fluid-filled bladder (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), and wherein the plurality of radially exterior segments comprise a lateral segment (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), a medial segment (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), an anterior segment (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), and a posterior segment (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), wherein each radially exterior segment has a curved shape (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a below), and wherein the cleated outsole plate includes a set of major cleats (see annotated Fig. 1 – b below; such are major cleats insofar as there are four of them, and four is more numerous than the two minor cleats) and a set of minor cleats (see annotated Fig. 1 – b below; such are minor cleats insofar as there are two of them, and two is fewer than the four of the minor cleats) disposed on the ground-facing surface of the receptacle (Figs. 1-4), the minor cleats being disposed at opposing ends (see annotated Fig. 1 – b below) of the ground-facing surface and the major cleats being disposed between the minor cleats (Figs. 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
955
1360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
557
1098
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Steinbeck Figs. 1-4 does not expressly disclose the fluid-filled bladder disposed entirely within the receptacle.
Figs. 3 and 4 show only two cross-sectional views of the sole structure, and it cannot be determined from the drawings alone whether the fluid filled bladder is disposed entirely within the receptacle at other portions of the shoe. However, looking to Fig. 2, an upraised portion of the cleated outsole 46 appears to extend around an entire periphery of the sole structure and appears to be capable of receiving the entirety of the fluid filled bladder. In addition, Steinbeck teaches “The outsole 46 may extend upwardly onto an outer surface of the upper 12, thereby encapsulating the midsole 44 between the outsole 46 and the upper 12” (para 50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole structure of Steinbeck such that its fluid-filled bladder is disposed entirely within the receptacle in order to permit the cleated outsole to extend onto the upper so as to encapsulate the midsole and its fluid-filled bladder, as suggested by Steinbeck (para 50).
Regarding claim 36:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck further discloses An article of footwear 10 comprising the sole structure of claim 33, wherein the chassis plate 40 is attached to a sockliner 42 of an upper 42, 12 (i.e. the combined 42 and 12) of the article of footwear.
Regarding claim 44:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck further discloses wherein the lateral segment and the medial segment have a same area similar outer extending dimensions, but an anterior most portion of the lateral segment is anterior to an anterior most portion of the medial segment (as in annotated Figs. 2-4 – a presented in above treatment of claim 33).
Regarding claim 45:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck further discloses wherein the fluid-filled bladder is disposed on a side of the receptacle opposite the ground-facing surface of the receptacle (Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Steinbeck, US 2019/0062614] in view of [Auyang, US 2019/0365039, newly cited].
Regarding claim 37:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck further discloses wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder (Figs. 1-4).
Steinbeck does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate is disposed solely in the forefoot region, and wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder and the set of major cleats and the set of minor cleats.
Steinbeck describes the chassis plate as a “strobel” (para 33).
Auyang teaches a sole structure comprising a chassis plate 10 (i.e. “strobel 10”; para 81) wherein the chassis plate “is a full length strobel having a forefoot region 25, a midfoot region 27, and a heel region 29. In other embodiments within the scope of the disclosure, the strobel may extend on only one or two of the regions, such as only in the heel region 29, only in the forefoot region 25, in both the forefoot and midfoot regions 25, 27 but not any of or not all of the heel region 29, or in both the heel and midfoot regions 27, 29 but not any of or not all of the forefoot region 25”; para 81.
Moreover and in further view of Steinbeck: Steinbeck teaches “As shown, the midsole 44 opposes the strobel 40, and is disposed intermediate the strobel 40 and the outsole 46. However, as discussed above, the strobel 40 may not be included in some configurations, and the midsole 44 may be disposed directly intermediate the insole 42 and the outsole 46. The midsole 44 is shown as extending from the anterior end 22 of the article of footwear 10 to the posterior end 24, and spans a width of the article of footwear 10 from the medial side 26 to the lateral side 28” (para 37).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Steinbeck such that its chassis plate is disposed solely in the forefoot region in order to permit cushioning via direct contact between the midsole 44 and the sockliner 42 in the heel and midfoot regions due to the absence of the chassis plate from the heel and midfoot regions.
Regarding the limitation and wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder and the set of major cleats and the set of minor cleats:
In adopting the modification above, the chassis plate would no longer overlap the sets of major and minor cleats identified in above treatment of claim 33.
However and in further view of Steinbeck: as stated above in addressing of claim 33, what makes a cleat a “major” cleat vs a “minor” cleat is the numeracy thereof. And as presented in Steinbeck Fig. 1, there are six cleats 74 in the forefoot region (see Steinbeck Fig. 1), and among those six, four would be the claimed major cleats, and two would be the claimed minor cleats, thereby meeting claim limitations.
Regarding claim 38:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck further discloses wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder (Figs. 1-4).
Steinbeck does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate is disposed solely in the forefoot region and a midfoot region, and wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder and the set of major cleats and the set of minor cleats.
Steinbeck describes the chassis plate as a “strobel” (para 33).
Auyang teaches a sole structure comprising a chassis plate 10 (i.e. “strobel 10”; para 81) wherein the chassis plate “is a full length strobel having a forefoot region 25, a midfoot region 27, and a heel region 29. In other embodiments within the scope of the disclosure, the strobel may extend on only one or two of the regions, such as only in the heel region 29, only in the forefoot region 25, in both the forefoot and midfoot regions 25, 27 but not any of or not all of the heel region 29, or in both the heel and midfoot regions 27, 29 but not any of or not all of the forefoot region 25”; para 81.
Moreover and in further view of Steinbeck: Steinbeck teaches “As shown, the midsole 44 opposes the strobel 40, and is disposed intermediate the strobel 40 and the outsole 46. However, as discussed above, the strobel 40 may not be included in some configurations, and the midsole 44 may be disposed directly intermediate the insole 42 and the outsole 46. The midsole 44 is shown as extending from the anterior end 22 of the article of footwear 10 to the posterior end 24, and spans a width of the article of footwear 10 from the medial side 26 to the lateral side 28” (para 37).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Steinbeck such that its chassis plate is disposed solely in the forefoot and the midfoot region in order to permit cushioning via direct contact between the midsole 44 and the sockliner 42 in the heel and region due to the absence of the chassis plate from the heel region.
Regarding the limitation and wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder and the set of major cleats and the set of minor cleats:
In adopting the modification above, the chassis plate would no longer overlap the sets of major and minor cleats identified in above treatment of claim 33.
However and in further view of Steinbeck: as stated above in addressing of claim 33, what makes a cleat a “major” cleat vs a “minor” cleat is the numeracy thereof. And as presented in Steinbeck Fig. 1, there are six cleats 74 in the forefoot region (see Steinbeck Fig. 1), and among those six, four would be the claimed major cleats, and two would be the claimed minor cleats, thereby meeting claim limitations.
Regarding claim 39:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck further discloses wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder (Figs. 1-4).
Steinbeck does not expressly disclose wherein the chassis plate is not disposed in the heel region, and wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder and the set of major cleats and the set of minor cleats.
Steinbeck describes the chassis plate as a “strobel” (para 33).
Auyang teaches a sole structure comprising a chassis plate 10 (i.e. “strobel 10”; para 81) wherein the chassis plate “is a full length strobel having a forefoot region 25, a midfoot region 27, and a heel region 29. In other embodiments within the scope of the disclosure, the strobel may extend on only one or two of the regions, such as only in the heel region 29, only in the forefoot region 25, in both the forefoot and midfoot regions 25, 27 but not any of or not all of the heel region 29, or in both the heel and midfoot regions 27, 29 but not any of or not all of the forefoot region 25”; para 81.
Moreover and in further view of Steinbeck: Steinbeck teaches “As shown, the midsole 44 opposes the strobel 40, and is disposed intermediate the strobel 40 and the outsole 46. However, as discussed above, the strobel 40 may not be included in some configurations, and the midsole 44 may be disposed directly intermediate the insole 42 and the outsole 46. The midsole 44 is shown as extending from the anterior end 22 of the article of footwear 10 to the posterior end 24, and spans a width of the article of footwear 10 from the medial side 26 to the lateral side 28” (para 37).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Steinbeck such that its chassis plate is not disposed in the heel region in order to permit cushioning via direct contact between the midsole 44 and the sockliner 42 in the heel region due to the absence of the chassis plate from the heel region.
Regarding the limitation and wherein the chassis plate overlies the fluid-filled bladder and the set of major cleats and the set of minor cleats:
In adopting the modification above, the chassis plate would no longer overlap the sets of major and minor cleats identified in above treatment of claim 33.
However and in further view of Steinbeck: as stated above in addressing of claim 33, what makes a cleat a “major” cleat vs a “minor” cleat is the numeracy thereof. And as presented in Steinbeck Fig. 1, there are six cleats 74 in the forefoot region (see Steinbeck Fig. 1), and among those six, four would be the claimed major cleats, and two would be the claimed minor cleats, thereby meeting claim limitations.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Steinbeck, US 2019/0062614] and [Auyang, US 2019/0365039] as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of [Soumokil, US 2012/0324762, newly cited].
Regarding claim 46:
Steinbeck teaches The sole structure of claim 33, as set forth above.
Steinbeck does not expressly disclose wherein the major cleats have a substantially crescent shape and the minor cleats have a substantially triangular shape.
Soumokil teaches a sole structure (“outsole”; Abstract) wherein a traction element has a substantially crescent shape: “Traction element 35 be configured in one of any number of shapes that can provide traction, such as, for example,...triangles,...crescents”; para 60.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the modified Steinbeck such that the major cleats have a substantially crescent shape and the minor cleats have a substantially triangular shape in order to provide traction via the shapes thereof, as suggested by Soumokil (para 60).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights