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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 2/9/2026, claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 16-19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/9/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has altered the scope of the claims, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 (and 2-5 and 7-12 at least based on dependency from a rejected base claim) are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the support component includes a first exterior fluid line support surface that extends along and supports an exterior surface of the second fluid line”. This limitation is confusing because it identifies a “first exterior fluid line support surface” but later recites that it supports the “second fluid line”. It is unclear whether this first exterior fluid line support surface should support the second fluid line as written, or if the intent was for the first exterior fluid line support surface to support the first fluid line (as is implied by first exterior fluid line support surface). For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring the first exterior fluid line support surface to support the first fluid line.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the support component includes a first exterior fluid line support surface that extends along and supports an exterior surface of the second fluid line”. This limitation is confusing because it identifies a “first exterior fluid line support surface” but later recites that it supports the “second fluid line”. It is unclear whether this first exterior fluid line support surface should support the second fluid line as written, or if the intent was for the first exterior fluid line support surface to support the first fluid line (as is implied by first exterior fluid line support surface). For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring the first exterior fluid line support surface to support the first fluid line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-12, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrichot (US 2020/0046071) in view of Bailly (US 2020/0367606).
Regarding claim 1, Henrichot discloses: A fluid system for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder (102); a fluid reservoir (104); a pump (110) including an inlet and an outlet (see annotated figure 3C below), the outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder; a first fluid line (see annotated figure 3C below) placing the fluid reservoir in fluid communication with the inlet of the pump; a second fluid line (see annotated figure 3C below) placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and a switch (108) configured to change the second fluid line between an open configuration (see figure 3A annotated below showing the open configuration) and a closed configuration (see figure 3C annotated below showing the closed configuration), wherein when the second fluid line is in the closed configuration, the pump is configured to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder (“the check valves and/or one way valves (e.g., valves 114, 118, other present check valves, etc.) could be reversed in the systems of FIGS. 3A-3C, e.g., to create a system that moves fluid from the reservoir 104 to the foot support bladder 102” paragraph 258; this reversed orientation is illustrated in the annotated figure 3C below, showing the closed configuration with the check valves oriented such that the fluid moves from the reservoir to the foot support bladder), and wherein movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder with the second fluid line in the closed configuration decreases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir (“pressure is increased in [foot support bladder 102] (via the step cycle pumping action of pump 110) until the pressure is high enough in [bladder 102] that activation of the pump 110 through a single pump stroke cycle is insufficient to move more fluid into the [foot support bladder 102]. More specifically, the compression force of the user’s step will compress the pump 110 bulb and, because of the valve 114, this compression will force a volume of fluid out of the pump 110 chamber and into fluid transfer line 116, 210/216. […] After one or more pump 110 bulb compression cycles, the volume of fluid moved during a pump 110 stroke cycle will not be sufficient to move additional fluid past the valve 118 and into the [foot support bladder 102]” paragraph 254; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraph; Additionally, because of the decrease in volume of fluid in the reservoir 104, it is understood that the height of the reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it by pump 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3C of Henrichot showing the closed/high pressure configuration
PNG
media_image2.png
412
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3A of Henrichot showing the open/low pressure configuration
Henrichot further teaches “if necessary or desired, in accordance with at least some examples of this invention, structure and/or components may be provided to prevent undesired closure (e.g., pinch-off, kink, etc.) of these relatively small and thin fluid transfer lines at the bend/fold locations” (paragraph 224), but does not explicitly disclose: a support component, wherein the switch is movably mounted to the support component, and wherein the support component includes a first exterior fluid line support surface that extends along and supports an exterior surface of the [first* see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above] fluid line.
Bailly teaches a support component (500), wherein a switch (600) is movably mounted to the support component (“movable cam 600 is at least partially located within the internal chamber 504 of the manifold body 502 […] Movable cam 600 in this illustrated example is mounted on a rotatable shaft 702, which may be rotated through operation of motor 700. The shaft 702 may extend into and/or out of the manifold body 502 in a sealed manner (e.g., so that gas does not escape from the chamber 504 through the shaft port(s)).” Paragraph 55; see also figures 2A and 2C), and wherein the support component includes a first exterior fluid line support surface (552) that extends along and supports an exterior surface of a first fluid line (220; see figure 2A and 2C, which shows how the exterior surface of the fluid line 220 is supported by the surface of the port walls 552).
Bailly teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the support component including cylindrical port walls surrounding the fluid lines as taught by Bailly to the footwear of Henrichot in order to provide additional support to the fluid lines (see paragraph 55 of Bailly and paragraph 224 of Henrichot).
Regarding claim 4, Henrichot as modified discloses: The fluid system according to claim 1, wherein after the pump has been activated with the switch in the closed configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switch to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir (Henrichot, “when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support bladder 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the reservoir had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the volume of fluid increase would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs).
Regarding claim 5, Henrichot as modified discloses: The fluid system according to claim 1, wherein after the pump has been activated with the switch in the closed configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switch to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure is equalized throughout the fluid system (Henrichot, “when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support bladder 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the reservoir had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the volume of fluid increase would also be accompanied by a height increase; the change is considered to be immediate because the fluid flow begins as soon as the switch is triggered; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs).
Regarding claim 6, Henrichot discloses: A foot support system for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder (102); a fluid reservoir (104); a pump (110) including an inlet and an outlet (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above), the outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder; a first fluid line (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above) placing the fluid reservoir in fluid communication with the inlet of the pump; a second fluid line (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above) placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and a switch (108) configured to change the second fluid line between an open configuration (see figure 3A annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the open configuration) and a closed configuration (see figure 3C of Henrichot annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the closed configuration), wherein when the second fluid line is in the closed configuration, the pump configured to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder (Henrichot, “the check valves and/or one way valves (e.g., valves 114, 118, other present check valves, etc.) could be reversed in the systems of FIGS. 3A-3C, e.g., to create a system that moves fluid from the reservoir 104 to the foot support bladder 102” paragraph 258; this reversed orientation is illustrated in the annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the closed configuration with the check valves oriented such that the fluid moves from the reservoir to the foot support bladder), and wherein movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder with the second fluid line in the closed configuration decreases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir (Henrichot, “pressure is increased in [foot support bladder 102] (via the step cycle pumping action of pump 110) until the pressure is high enough in [bladder 102] that activation of the pump 110 through a single pump stroke cycle is insufficient to move more fluid into the [foot support bladder 102]. More specifically, the compression force of the user’s step will compress the pump 110 bulb and, because of the valve 114, this compression will force a volume of fluid out of the pump 110 chamber and into fluid transfer line 116, 210/216. […] After one or more pump 110 bulb compression cycles, the volume of fluid moved during a pump 110 stroke cycle will not be sufficient to move additional fluid past the valve 118 and into the [foot support bladder 102]” paragraph 254; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraph; Additionally, because of the decrease in volume of fluid in the reservoir 104, it is understood that the height of the reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it by pump 110).
Henrichot further teaches “if necessary or desired, in accordance with at least some examples of this invention, structure and/or components may be provided to prevent undesired closure (e.g., pinch-off, kink, etc.) of these relatively small and thin fluid transfer lines at the bend/fold locations” (paragraph 224), but does not explicitly disclose: a support component, wherein the switch is movably mounted to the support component, and wherein the support component includes a first exterior fluid line support surface that extends along and supports an exterior surface of the [first* see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above] fluid line.
Bailly teaches a support component (500), wherein a switch (600) is movably mounted to the support component (“movable cam 600 is at least partially located within the internal chamber 504 of the manifold body 502 […] Movable cam 600 in this illustrated example is mounted on a rotatable shaft 702, which may be rotated through operation of motor 700. The shaft 702 may extend into and/or out of the manifold body 502 in a sealed manner (e.g., so that gas does not escape from the chamber 504 through the shaft port(s)).” Paragraph 55; see also figures 2A and 2C), and wherein the support component includes a first exterior fluid line support surface (552) that extends along and supports an exterior surface of a first fluid line (220; see figure 2A and 2C, which shows how the exterior surface of the fluid line 220 is supported by the surface of the port walls 552).
Bailly teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the support component including cylindrical port walls surrounding the fluid lines as taught by Bailly to the footwear of Henrichot in order to provide additional support to the fluid lines (see paragraph 55 of Bailly and paragraph 224 of Henrichot).
Regarding claim 7, Henrichot as modified discloses: The foot support system according to claim 6, further comprising: a first midsole component (Henrichot, 262) extending between and at least partially separating the foot support bladder and the fluid reservoir (Henrichot, “one or more separating members 262 are provided between the foot support bladder 102 and the fluid reservoir 104 (e.g., between the bottom surface 102B of the foot support bladder 102 and the top surface 104T of the fluid reservoir bladder 104)” paragraph 243), wherein the first midsole component includes a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface engages at least a portion of the fluid reservoir, and wherein the top surface engages at least a portion of the foot support bladder (see figure 2E of Henrichot showing the separating component 262 has a bottom surface that engages the fluid reservoir 104 and a top surface that engages the foot support bladder 102).
Regarding claim 8, Henrichot as modified does not explicitly disclose: The foot support system according to claim 7, further comprising a second midsole component, wherein at least a portion of the foot support bladder is located between the first midsole component and the second midsole component.
However, Bailly further teaches a sock liner (112) wherein at least a portion of a foot support bladder (200) is located between a first midsole component (350) and the sock liner (see figure 1C below).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bailly teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the sock liner (112) of Bailly, which can be considered a “second midsole component” insofar as claimed, on top of the foot support bladder of Henrichot in order to improve the comfort for the user by adding more support and cushioning for the user’s foot.
Regarding claim 11, Henrichot as modified discloses: The foot support system according to claim 6, wherein after the pump has been activated with the switch in the closed configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switch to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir (Henrichot, “when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support bladder 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume in the reservoir had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the volume of fluid increase would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs).
Regarding claim 12, Henrichot as modified discloses: The foot support system according to claim 6, wherein after the pump has been activated with the switch in the closed configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switch to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure is equalized in the foot support bladder and the fluid reservoir (Henrichot, “when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support bladder 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume in the reservoir had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the volume of fluid increase would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrichot/Bailly as applied to claims 1 (regarding claims 2-3) and 6 (regarding claims 9-10) above, and further in view of Hopkins (US 2021/0361030).
Regarding claim 2, Henrichot as modified discloses: The fluid system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is movable to pinch the second fluid line when the switch places the second fluid line in the closed configuration (Henrichot, “the fluid control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines […] the flow control system 108 may include a switch 108S (e.g., a dial) for physically and/or manually moving the “pinch off” structures” paragraph 230).
Henrichot as modified does not explicitly disclose: a protrusion that is movable to pinch the second fluid line when the switch places the second fluid line in the closed configuration.
However, Hopkins teaches a switch (522) including a protrusion (522A) that is movable to pinch a fluid line (“An exterior surface 522P of switch activator 522 includes one or more raised surfaces (one raised surface 522A is shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B as an example). In the configuration of FIG. 9A, the raised surface 522A is positioned away from fluid path 900 and the fluid flow path 502P is open to fluid flow. When the switch activator 522 is moved (e.g., rotated), e.g., under manual or computer control, to the configuration of FIG. 9B, the raised surface 522A contacts the outer wall 502O of the fluid path 900 and pinches the fluid path 900 closed (e.g., so that opposite sides of the inner wall 502I contact one another and close fluid flow path 502P). Once the raised surface 522A again is moved away from fluid path 900, the fluid path 900 will reopen (e.g., to the configuration of FIG. 9A) and fluid can again flow within fluid path 900” paragraph 96; see figures 9A-9B).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the switch of Henrichot specifically with a protrusion structure in order to perform the function of pinching off the fluid tube because Henrichot is silent as to the specific structure to perform that function of “pinching off” and Hopkins teaches that a protrusion is a suitable structure for performing that same function of pinching a fluid tube. Using a protrusion is also preferable over other methods like electronic methods because it is entirely analog and does not require a power source in order to open/close the fluid tubes.
Regarding claim 3, Henrichot as modified teaches that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir will decrease under the claimed conditions (and therefore, because of the decrease in volume of fluid in the reservoir 104, it is understood that the height of the reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it by pump 110, which may be considered to cause the reservoir to “collapse” insofar as claimed or described) but does not explicitly disclose: The fluid system according to claim 1, wherein the movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder with the second fluid line in the closed configuration decreases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir by at least 8 mm.
However, Hopkins teaches a fluid system wherein sufficient movement of fluid from a first chamber (400M) to a second chamber (400L) decreases the height dimension of the first chamber by at least 8 mm (“the height HM of the first side fluid-filled bladder 400M in its high height configuration (FIG. 3A) may be […] at least 10 mm higher […] than its height HM at the same transverse cross sectional location in its low height configuration (FIG. 3B)” paragraph 74).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the size of the fluid reservoir such that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir decrease by specifically at least 10 mm when sufficient movement of fluid out of the chamber occurs, as taught by Hopkins, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the fluid reservoir. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995). See MPEP 2144. Further, Examiner notes that there is no demonstrated criticality for the specific claimed height dimension, as paragraph 120 of the instant specification lists a wide variety of potential ranges of height differentials as follows: “at least 3 mm; at least 5 mm; at least 8 mm; at least 10 mm; at least 12 mm; at least 15 mm; at least 20 mm; between 3 mm and 35 mm; between 3 mm and 30 mm; between 3 mm and 25 mm; between 5 mm and 35 mm; between 5 mm and 30 mm; between 5 mm and 25 mm; between 8 mm and 35 mm; between 8 mm and 30 mm; between 8 mm and 25 mm; between 10 mm and 35 mm; between 10 mm and 30 mm; and/or between 10 mm and 25 mm.”
Regarding claim 9, Henrichot as modified discloses: The fluid system according to claim 6, wherein the switch is movable to pinch the second fluid line when the switch places the second fluid line in the closed configuration (Henrichot, “the fluid control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines […] the flow control system 108 may include a switch 108S (e.g., a dial) for physically and/or manually moving the “pinch off” structures” paragraph 230).
Henrichot as modified does not explicitly disclose: a protrusion that is movable to pinch the second fluid line when the switch places the second fluid line in the closed configuration.
However, Hopkins teaches a switch (522) including a protrusion (522A) that is movable to pinch a fluid line (“An exterior surface 522P of switch activator 522 includes one or more raised surfaces (one raised surface 522A is shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B as an example). In the configuration of FIG. 9A, the raised surface 522A is positioned away from fluid path 900 and the fluid flow path 502P is open to fluid flow. When the switch activator 522 is moved (e.g., rotated), e.g., under manual or computer control, to the configuration of FIG. 9B, the raised surface 522A contacts the outer wall 502O of the fluid path 900 and pinches the fluid path 900 closed (e.g., so that opposite sides of the inner wall 502I contact one another and close fluid flow path 502P). Once the raised surface 522A again is moved away from fluid path 900, the fluid path 900 will reopen (e.g., to the configuration of FIG. 9A) and fluid can again flow within fluid path 900” paragraph 96; see figures 9A-9B).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the switch of Henrichot specifically with a protrusion structure in order to perform the function of pinching off the fluid tube because Henrichot is silent as to the specific structure to perform that function of “pinching off” and Hopkins teaches that a protrusion is a suitable structure for performing that same function of pinching a fluid tube. Using a protrusion is also preferable over other methods like electronic methods because it is entirely analog and does not require a power source in order to open/close the fluid tubes.
Regarding claim 10, Henrichot as modified teaches that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir will decrease under the claimed conditions (and therefore, because of the decrease in volume of fluid in the reservoir 104, it is understood that the height of the reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it by pump 110, which may be considered to cause the reservoir to “collapse” insofar as claimed or described) but does not explicitly disclose: The fluid system according to claim 6, wherein the movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder with the second fluid line in the closed configuration decreases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir by at least 8 mm.
However, Hopkins teaches a fluid system wherein sufficient movement of fluid from a first chamber (400M) to a second chamber (400L) decreases the height dimension of the first chamber by at least 8 mm (“the height HM of the first side fluid-filled bladder 400M in its high height configuration (FIG. 3A) may be […] at least 10 mm higher […] than its height HM at the same transverse cross sectional location in its low height configuration (FIG. 3B)” paragraph 74).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the size of the fluid reservoir such that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir decrease by specifically at least 10 mm when sufficient movement of fluid out of the chamber occurs, as taught by Hopkins, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the fluid reservoir. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995). See MPEP 2144. Further, Examiner notes that there is no demonstrated criticality for the specific claimed height dimension, as paragraph 120 of the instant specification lists a wide variety of potential ranges of height differentials as follows: “at least 3 mm; at least 5 mm; at least 8 mm; at least 10 mm; at least 12 mm; at least 15 mm; at least 20 mm; between 3 mm and 35 mm; between 3 mm and 30 mm; between 3 mm and 25 mm; between 5 mm and 35 mm; between 5 mm and 30 mm; between 5 mm and 25 mm; between 8 mm and 35 mm; between 8 mm and 30 mm; between 8 mm and 25 mm; between 10 mm and 35 mm; between 10 mm and 30 mm; and/or between 10 mm and 25 mm.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Browne (US 2021/0368938), Marvin (US 2012/0167413), and Patton (US 2019/0053572) teach relevant footwear with bladder systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights