DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-25 are presented.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are amended.
Claims 19-25 remain withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1-18 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Regarding Drawings: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues “The drawings will be formalized to comply with requirements”; however, the reply does not cure the drawings objections; the drawings objections presented in the prior Office action are again presented in the present Office action.
Regarding Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, the amended claims, and applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s reply of 11/25/2025 overcomes the claim objections raised in the previous Office action.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102: 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.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: 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 because Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, and 4C include photographs and/or photocopies of photographs. The subject matter of the application admits of illustration by drawings, and drawings are required in place of the photographs and/or photocopies thereof.
Attention is drawn to MPEP 608, which references 37 CFR 1.84, and states, in relevant part; emphases provided by Examiner:
Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
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 § 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) 1-2, 7, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Mansfield, US 6,594,922, newly cited] in view of [Brown, US 5,722,186, newly cited] and [Farina, US 2023/0124653, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Mansfield discloses (Fig. 6):
An athletic shoe (the “shoe” (col. 9 line 43) of Fig. 6; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) comprising:
an upper 40; and
a sole 34, 2, 32, 30 (i.e. the combined 34, 2, 32, 30) wherein the sole further comprises:
an upper midsole 34;
a lower midsole 32 extending from a medial side to a lateral side (as in Fig. 6); and
a plate 2 (i.e. the “single unit” 2 which comprises both 4 and 6: “counter 4...connected to planter aspect 6”; col. 9 lines 47-48) disposed between the upper midsole and the lower midsole (“positioned between midsole 32 and interior 34”; col. 9 lines 45-46) and extending from the medial side to the lateral side (as in Fig. 6), wherein the plate comprises:
a toe region (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) having an apparent planar shape (Fig. 6), wherein the toe region is provided between the upper midsole and the lower midsole (col. 9 lines 45-46; Fig. 6); and
a heel region (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) having a contoured incurvature (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below), wherein the heel region protrudes externally from between the upper midsole and the lower midsole (plate 2 is “between [lower] midsole 32 and [lower midsole] 34” (col. 9 lines 46-47) such that heel region of plate protrudes externally therefrom) to form a sidewall (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) that encompasses a heel region (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) of the upper midsole (plate 2 is “between [lower] midsole 32 and [lower midsole] 34” (col. 9 lines 46-47) such that sidewall encompasses the heel region of the upper midsole 34) and wherein the sidewall forms a continuous external surface (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) that extends from at least a first point (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below) on the medial side, along the heel region, and to a second point (see annotated Fig. 6 – a below wherein it is noted that the plate is a three dimensional object such that the continuous external surface is provided at the location of the identified second point and, in addition, extends continuously therefrom to those portions of the continuous external surface that are not obscured by the contoured incurvature in Fig. 6) on the lateral side (Mansfield is silent as to whether the shoe of Fig. 6 is a right shoe or a left shoe; however, Mansfield meets the limitation regardless of which side is medial and which side is lateral insofar as the one of the points identified in annotated Fig. 6 – a below is on the medial side and the other of the points identified in annotated Fig. 6 – a below is on the lateral side).
PNG
media_image1.png
767
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mansfield Fig. 6 does not expressly disclose the toe region is having a planar shape.
As stated above, Fig. 6 shows an apparent planar shape for toe region. However, the figures of Mansfield are not expressly to scale, and Fig. 6 is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional shoe such that it cannot be determined from Fig. 6 alone whether the toe region is having a planar shape or not.
Brown teaches (Figs. 1-6) a plate 100 comprising a toe region 108 wherein the toe region has a planar shape (“planar forefoot section 108”; col. 8 line 15; Fig. 5). Brown further teaches the toe region “supports the metatarsal heads and the toes of the wearer” (col. 8 line 33).
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 shoe of Mansfield such that its toe region is having a planar shape in order to yield the predictable result of a toe region that is configured to receive a wearer’s metatarsal heads and toes thereabove when the wearer’s foot is configured such bottom surfaces of his metatarsal heads and toes are flat relative to one another.
Mansfield Fig. 6 does not expressly disclose wherein the toe region is encapsulated between the upper midsole and the lower midsole.
Mansfield Fig. 6 shows the shoe in exploded view such that it cannot be determined whether the toe region when assembled is encapsulated between upper midsole and lower midsole or not.
Farina teaches a sole plate 206 wherein a toe region thereof (Figs. 3-4, wherein it is noted line 4-4 of Fig. 3 is in an area of shoe 10 configured to underlie a toe of a wearer) is encapsulated (Fig. 4) between an upper midsole and a lower midsole (“plate 206 is disposed between the upper midsole portion 203 a and the lower midsole portion 203 b” (para 56) and encapsulated therebetween (Fig. 4). It is noted Fig. 4 does not provide numerals 203a, 203b in the figure; however, one of ordinary skill would look to the assignments of 203a, 203b in the embodiment of Figs. 23-24 and the description of para 56 and recognize that Fig. 4 shows toe region of sole plate 206 encapsulated between upper midsole and lower midsole).
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 Mansfield such that the toe region is encapsulated between the upper midsole and the lower midsole in order to yield the predictable result of a plate, upper midsole, and lower midsole combination that discourages relative movement of plate to the upper midsole and lower midsole via the encapsulating material surrounding the toe region of the plate.
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 modified Mansfield such that the toe region is encapsulated between the upper midsole and the lower midsole in order to yield the predictable result of a plate, upper midsole, and lower midsole combination are secured to each other via the encapsulation of toe region between upper midsole and lower midsole. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to arrange the toe region of the plate relative to the upper midsole and the lower midsole and would have reasonably expected the arrangement wherein the toe region is encapsulated between the upper midsole and the lower midsole is an arrangement among the toe region, the upper midsole, and the lower midsole to be an acceptable arrangement therefor based on the teachings of Farina.
Regarding claim 2:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield further discloses wherein the sidewall further encompasses a midfoot region (see annotated Fig. 6 – b below) of the upper midsole (plate 2 is “between [lower] midsole 32 and [lower midsole] 34” (col. 9 lines 46-47) such that sidewall encompasses the midfoot region of the upper midsole 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
767
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield further discloses the plate further comprises a midfoot region (Fig. 6).
Mansfield Fig. 6 does not expressly disclose wherein the plate further comprises a midfoot region having an arched shape for supporting an instep of a foot of a wearer.
However and in further view of Mansfield:
Mansfield Figs. 1-2 teaches a plate 2 comprising a midfoot region having an arched shape (“rounded”; col. 6 line 25) for supporting an instep of a foot of a wearer: “side wall 14 and plantar aspect 6 comprise a rounded surface 18 which is positioned immediately adjacent to the medial arch of the foot. In the medial direction, the support extends from proximal to the first metatarsal head to a point distal to the calcaneus to form the medial arch support 18. In this way, stabilizer 2 conforms to, and provides support for, the medial arch of the foot” and/or “lateral (outer) side wall 16 and plantar aspect 6 comprise a rounded surface 20 which is positioned immediately adjacent to the lateral arch of the foot. Lateral arch support 20 extends from the distal end of the calcaneus to about the base of the fifth metatarsal. In this way, stabilizer 2 conforms to, and provides support for, the lateral arch of the foot” (col. 6 line 53 – col. 7 line 2).
Mansfield further teaches the arched shape is for “providing support for the...arches” and to “substantially reduce rotation of the heel” (col. 7 lines 3-4).
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 Mansfield such that the midfoot region is having an arched shape for supporting an instep of a foot of a wearer in order to provide arch support and/or reduce heel rotation, as taught by Mansfield (col. 7 lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 11:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Mansfield further meets the limitation wherein the planar shape of the toe region acts as a propulsion plate that provides a rebound energy return during a gait cycle (plate is “made from a material which is firm... but which allows for flexing of the plantar aspect, arches and joints upon walking” (col. 7 liens 47-50) such that the planar toe region when flexed while walking is configured to provide a rebound energy return as claimed).
Regarding claim 12:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Mansfield further meets the limitation wherein deflection of the toe region during a gait cycle provides rebound energy when transitioning through a midfoot towards toe-off (plate is “made from a material which is firm... but which allows for flexing of the plantar aspect, arches and joints upon walking” (col. 7 liens 47-50) such that deflection of the toe region during a gait cycle provides rebound energy when transitioning through a midfoot towards toe-off as claimed).
Regarding claim 13:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield further discloses wherein at least the contoured incurvature of the heel region is configured to approximate a foot of a wearer (col. 4 lines 19-20; col. 10 line 5)
Regarding claim 14:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 12, as set forth above.
Mansfield further discloses wherein the contoured incurvature limits compression of the upper midsole during a heel strike of a gait cycle (Mansfield is configured such that a heel strike can provide force directly to the contoured incurvature as opposed to the upper midsole, permitting energy absorbance into the plate lest it be fully transferred to the upper midsole, thereby limiting compression as claimed).
Regarding claim 15:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 13, as set forth above.
Mansfield further discloses wherein a downward force imparted to the upper midsole during the heel strike is transferred radially to the lower midsole according to the contoured incurvature of the heel portion (Mansfield is configured such that a heel strike can provide downward force to the incurvature such that force is transferred radially downward to the lower midsole provided thereunder such that Mansfield meets the limitation a downward force imparted to the upper midsole during the heel strike is transferred radially to the lower midsole according to the contoured incurvature of the heel portion as claimed).
Regarding claim 16:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 14, as set forth above.
Mansfield further discloses wherein radially transferring a downward force from the upper midsole to the lower midsole increases stability for both pronated heel strike and supinated heel strike (Mansfield is configured such that a heel strike can provide downward force to the upper midsole and towards both the plate and the lower midsole whereby the incurvature of the plate promotes lateral and medial stability such that Mansfield meets the limitation a downward force imparted to the upper midsole during the heel strike is transferred radially to the lower midsole according to the contoured incurvature of the heel portion as claimed).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Mansfield, US 6,594,922], [Brown, US 5,722,186], and [Farina, US 2023/0124653] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Watkins, US 2014/0272379, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose where in the upper midsole and the lower midsole are formed from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer selected from the group consisting of: ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyurethane, polyethylene, polyolefin, polyester, co- polyester, polyether, polyamide, styrene block copolymers, vulcanizates, and combinations thereof.
However, Watkins teaches a foamed article appropriate for use “as a midsole or a part of a midsole” (para 53) wherein the foamed article is formed from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer (Title) selected from the group consisting of polyurethane and polyamide (para 42). Watkins further teaches the material is appropriate for “cushioning in footwear” (para 9).
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 Mansfield such that its upper midsole and the lower midsole are formed from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer selected from a group consisting of: polyurethane and polyamide in order to provide cushioning to the midsole, as suggested by Watkins (para 9).
Regarding claim 4:
Mansfield in view of Brown, Farina, and Watkins teaches The athletic shoe of claim 3, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the thermoplastic elastomer is a supercritical foam selected from the group consisting of supercritical ethylene- vinyl acetate, supercritical polyurethane, and combinations thereof.
However, Watkins teaches a foamed article appropriate for use “as a midsole or a part of a midsole” (para 53) wherein the foamed article is formed from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer (Title) selected from the group consisting of a supercritical foam comprising supercritical polyurethane (para 42). Watkins further teaches the material is appropriate for “cushioning in footwear” (para 9).
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 Mansfield such that its upper midsole and the lower midsole are from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer wherein the foamed thermoplastic elastomer is a supercritical foam comprising supercritical polyurethane in order to provide cushioning to the midsole, as suggested by Watkins (para 9).
Regarding claim 8:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the plate is formed from a thermoplastic elastomer selected from the group consisting of: polyurethane, polyethylene, polyolefin, polyester, co-polyester, polyether, polyamide, styrene block copolymers, vulcanizates, and combinations thereof.
However, Watkins teaches a foamed article appropriate for use “as a midsole or a part of a midsole” (para 53) wherein the foamed article is formed from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer (Title) selected from the group consisting of polyurethane and polyamide (para 42). Watkins further teaches the material is appropriate for “cushioning in footwear” (para 9).
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 Mansfield such that its plate formed from a foamed thermoplastic elastomer selected from a group consisting of: polyurethane and polyamide in order to provide cushioning to the midsole, as suggested by Watkins (para 9).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Mansfield, US 6,594,922], [Brown, US 5,722,186], and [Farina, US 2023/0124653] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Narishima, US 2005/0038131, previously cited].
Regarding claim 5:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the upper midsole has a thickness of about 10 mm at a toe region of the upper midsole and about 13 mm at the heel region the upper midsole.
However, Narishima teaches a “member having a thickness of 2 to 50 mm, in which the thickness of the member may be spatially uneven. For instance, when the foamed article is used as a midsole for shoes, the foamed article has the same constitution in which the heel portion is thickened and the toe portion is thinned” (para 82).
Because Narishima is concerned with cushioning (Abstract) of a midsole article and provides a range (i.e. 2 to 50 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed heel region and toe region thicknesses through routine experimentation in order to provide desired midsole properties. Each of the claimed thicknesses is merely an optimum or workable thickness and the thickness in heel and toe regions is expected to cushioning at heel and toe regions.
Therefore, 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 Mansfield such that the upper midsole has a thickness of about 10 mm at a toe region of the upper midsole and about 13 mm at a heel region the upper midsole in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose upper midsole provides a desirable level of cushioning at heel and toe regions according to some users’ preferences.
Regarding claim 6:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the lower midsole has a thickness of about 8 mm at a toe region of the lower midsole and about 14 mm at the heel region of the upper midsole.
However, Narishima teaches a “member having a thickness of 2 to 50 mm, in which the thickness of the member may be spatially uneven. For instance, when the foamed article is used as a midsole for shoes, the foamed article has the same constitution in which the heel portion is thickened and the toe portion is thinned” (para 82).
Because Narishima is concerned with cushioning (Abstract) of a midsole article and provides a range (i.e. 2 to 50 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed heel region and toe region thicknesses through routine experimentation in order to provide desired midsole properties. Each of the claimed thicknesses is merely an optimum or workable thickness and the thickness in heel and toe regions is expected to cushioning at heel and toe regions.
Therefore, 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 Mansfield such that the lower midsole has a thickness of about 8 mm at a toe region of the lower midsole and about 14 mm at the heel region of the upper midsole in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose upper midsole provides a desirable level of cushioning at heel and toe regions according to some users’ preferences.
Regarding claim 10:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the plate has a thickness of about 2mm at a toe region of the plate and about 3mm at the heel region of the plate.
However, Narishima teaches a “member having a thickness of 2 to 50 mm, in which the thickness of the member may be spatially uneven. For instance, when the foamed article is used as a midsole for shoes, the foamed article has the same constitution in which the heel portion is thickened and the toe portion is thinned” (para 82).
Because Narishima is concerned with cushioning (Abstract) of a midsole article and provides a range (i.e. 2 to 50 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed heel region and toe region thicknesses through routine experimentation in order to provide desired midsole properties. Each of the claimed thicknesses is merely an optimum or workable thickness and the thickness in heel and toe regions is expected to cushioning at heel and toe regions.
Therefore, 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 Mansfield such that the plate has a thickness of about 2mm at a toe region of the plate and about 3mm at the heel region of the plate in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose plate provides a desirable level of cushioning at heel and toe regions according to some users’ preferences.
Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Mansfield, US 6,594,922], [Brown, US 5,722,186], and [Farina, US 2023/0124653] as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of [Hatfield, US 2019/0045885, previously cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 7, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the plate is formed from polyether block amide.
However, Hatfield teaches “A sole 10 may further comprise a midsole formed from a material that provides cushioning and absorbs/attenuates force during normal wear and/or athletic training or performance. Examples of materials often used in midsoles are, for example...polyether block amide” (para 19).
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 Mansfield such that its plate is formed from polyether block amide, as in Hatfield, in order to provide cushioning and/or absorb/attenuate force during normal wear and/or athletic training or performance, as taught by Hatfield (para 19).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Mansfield, US 6,594,922], [Brown, US 5,722,186], and [Farina, US 2023/0124653] as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of [Baghdadi, US 2018/0327564, previously cited] and [Hartveld, US 2009/0119951, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 7, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the athletic shoe provides an energy return of greater than 70% when measured at a compression of:
2000 Newtons over an impulse width of 185 milliseconds; and
1400 Newtons over an impulse width of 170 milliseconds.
However, Baghdadi teaches a “running compression cycle consisting of samples being compressed” at a compression of 300 Newtons over a 180 millisecond impulse width (para 37) and a “walking” compression of 144 N over a 600 millisecond impulse width (para 37) wherein an “energy return” of a shoe component is within the claimed range (i.e. “about 75% to 80%; about 75% to 85%, about 75% to 90%, about 80% to 95%; or about 85% to 95%”; para 34; see also specific values of energy return for each of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 which exceed 70% in Table 1). Although impulse widths of 170 and/or 185 milliseconds are not expressly disclosed in Baghdadi, one of ordinary skill would recognize that impulse width duration can vary based on the presentation of the two discrete widths described in para 37 wherein one of the two said discrete widths (i.e. 180 milliseconds) is close to the claimed widths.
Baghdadi teaches “high levels of energy return” make the materials “useful as cushioning materials for use in articles of footwear” (para 11).
Hartveld teaches assessing shoe sole compressibility properties “when subjected to a rapid, intermittent compressive force of between 600 to 6000 Newtons” (para 15) and further teaches “When running or jumping, the human body experiences a sudden increase in vertical ground reaction force” (para 2).
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 Mansfield such that the athletic shoe provides an energy return of greater than 70% when measured at a compression of: 2000 Newtons over an impulse width of 185 milliseconds; and 1400 Newtons over an impulse width of 170 milliseconds in order to yield a shoe that provides good cushioning to a wearer whose gait cycle takes 170-185 milliseconds and whose gait imparts 1400-2000 Newtons of force to the shoe.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Mansfield, US 6,594,922], [Brown, US 5,722,186], and [Farina, US 2023/0124653] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Baghdadi, US 2018/0327564, previously cited] and [Archer, US 2021/0277199, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Mansfield in view of Brown and Farina teach The athletic shoe of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mansfield does not expressly disclose wherein the plate of the athletic shoe is displaced greater than 7 millimeters when measured at a compression of:
2000 Newtons over an impulse width of 185 milliseconds; and
1400 Newtons over an impulse width of 170 milliseconds.
However, Baghdadi teaches a “running compression cycle consisting of samples being compressed” at a compression of 300 Newtons over a 180 millisecond impulse width (para 37) and a “walking” compression of 144 N over a 600 millisecond impulse width (para 37). Although impulse widths of 170 and/or 185 milliseconds are not expressly disclosed in Baghdadi, one of ordinary skill would recognize that impulse width duration can vary based on the presentation of the two discrete widths described in para 37 wherein one of the two said discrete widths (i.e. 180 milliseconds) is close to the claimed widths.
Baghdadi teaches “high levels of energy return” make the materials “useful as cushioning materials for use in articles of footwear” (para 11).
Archer teaches a “Midsole” (Table 2) wherein a “Displacement” is greater than 7 mm (all values or “Avg Max Displacement [mm]” exceed 7 mm in a “Cyclic Compression test” (para 91) at a compression force magnitude of about 2000 Newtons (“2000N”; para 152) and that the “Stiffness of a particular foam sample is the maximum load divided by the displacement at the maximum load, giving a value in N/mm” (para 152).
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 Mansfield such that the plate of the athletic shoe is displaced greater than 7 millimeters when measured at a compression of: 2000 Newtons over an impulse width of 185 milliseconds; and 1400 Newtons over an impulse width of 170 milliseconds in order to provide a plate whose stiffness exhibited by displacement at those forces and durations is desirable by some users of the footwear.
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