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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 15 December 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, claim(s) 6-13, 15, and 18-22 is/are canceled, claim(s) 28-32 has/have been added, and claim(s) 23-26 has/have been withdrawn.
Newly submitted claim 33 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 33 is drawn to non-elected Species B & C, as noted in the Restriction/Election response of 30 December 2024. Claim 33 recites, “the second cushioning element is disposed within the forefoot region of the article of footwear” which is a feature unique to Species B & C, and is not part of elected Species A. Accordingly, claim 33 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5, 14, 16-17, and 23-33 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow regarding claim(s) 1-5, 14, 16-17, and 28-32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan US 20210345729.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Chan discloses an article of footwear (Figs. 1-9 #10) comprising: a heel region (Figs. 1-9 #16) including a posterior end of the article of footwear (Fig. 3 #10 far left end), a mid-foot region (Figs. 1-9 #14), and a forefoot region (Figs. 1-9 #12) including an anterior end of the article of footwear (Fig. 3 #10 far right end); a lateral side (Fig. 1 #24), and a medial side opposite the lateral side (Fig. 1 #22); an upper (Figs. 1-9 #200); and a sole structure coupled to the upper (Figs. 1-9 #100), wherein the sole structure includes: a first cushioning element (Figs. 1-9 #106 back half), comprising a plurality of first tubes (Figs. 1-9 #129b/128c/128f/128b) and a plurality of first web areas (Figs. 1-9 #124 rear half), wherein adjacent first tubes of the plurality of first tubes are connected to one another by a respective first web area of the plurality of first web areas (Figs. 1-6), wherein each of the tubes of the plurality of first tubes have a circular cross-sectional shape along a toe-to-heel direction (Fig. 6 shows circular cross-sections); and a rubber outsole layer (Figs. 1-2 #104/112; ¶0005) forming a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (¶0005, 0051, 0095), the rubber outsole layer including a plurality of depressions (Figs. 1-8 show the curved depressed shape of the outsole #104 cupping the tubes), wherein each of the plurality of first tubes is received by one of the plurality of depressions (Figs. 1-8).
Regarding Claim 2, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of first tubes is a fluid-filled bladder (¶0002, 0005, 0054).
Regarding Claim 3, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first tubes are fluidly separated (Fig. 24; ¶0072 “one or more of the chambers 128a-128f, 129a-129b may be fluidly isolated from one or more of the other chambers 128a-128f, 129a-129b”) from at least one other tube of the plurality of first tubes (¶0072).
Regarding Claim 4, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of first tubes is fluidly separated from each of the other tubes of the plurality of first tubes (Fig. 24; ¶0072, “one or more of the chambers 128a-128f, 129a-129b may be fluidly isolated from one or more of the other chambers 128a-128f, 129a-129b”).
Regarding Claim 5, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first tubes are in fluid communication with one another (Fig. 6; ¶0072).
Regarding Claim 27, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 further comprising a coupling portion (Figs. 1-8 #112) extending between the heel region and the mid-foot region (Figs. 1-6), wherein the coupling portion includes a plurality of protrusions configured to be coupled with the plurality of first tubes (Figs. 6-8).
Regarding Claim 28, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein one or more ridges (Fig. 3 #156a-g) are disposed between adjacent depressions of the plurality of depressions of the rubber outsole layer (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 29, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 28, wherein the one or more ridges include at least one notch (Fig. 3 #150/152/186) disposed on a top surface of the respective one or more ridges (Fig. 3 #178), wherein the first web area is received by the at least one notch (Figs. 1-8; ¶0085).
Regarding Claim 30, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the sole structure includes: a second cushioning element (Figs. 1-9 #106 front half) comprising a plurality of second tubes (Figs. 1-9 #128e/128a/128d/129a) and a plurality of second web areas (Figs. 1-9 #124 front half), wherein adjacent second tubes of the plurality of second tubes are connected to one another by a respective second web area of the plurality of second web areas (Figs. 1-9), wherein each of the tubes of the plurality of second tubes have a circular cross-sectional shape along a toe-to-heel direction (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 31, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 30, wherein each of the plurality of second tubes is received by one of the plurality of depressions different from the plurality of depressions receiving each of the plurality of first tubes (Figs. 1-8 show the curved depressed shape of the outsole #104 cupping the tubes).
Regarding Claim 32, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 30, wherein the second cushioning element is a fluid-filled bladder (¶0002, 0005, 0054).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holt US 9510646.
Regarding Claim 16, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of first tubes includes a first tube with a first pressure, a second tube with a second pressure, a third tube with a third pressure, and a fourth tube with a fourth pressure.
Holt teaches a sole with a cushioning element comprising tubes (Fig. 5 #132) wherein the plurality of first tubes includes a first tube with a first pressure, a second tube with a second pressure, a third tube with a third pressure, and a fourth tube with a fourth pressure (Col. 2:44-61 and Col. 10:1-11:32).
Both Chan and Holt teach analogous inventions in the art of soles with tubes. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Chan with the teachings of Holt such that the plurality of first tubes includes a first tube with a first pressure, a second tube with a second pressure, a third tube with a third pressure, and a fourth tube with a fourth pressure “to provide a desired amount of cushioning and support for different portions of a foot” (Holt Col. 10:1-5) and since the pressure within a fluid filled chamber in a footwear sole is a results effective variable with the results being the cushion and support provided to the wearer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, the modified article of footwear of Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 16, wherein pressures in the tubes are the same (¶0072) or different (¶0072), but does not expressly disclose wherein the first pressure and the third pressure are the same pressure, and wherein second pressure and the fourth pressure are the same pressure different from the pressure of the first pressure and the third pressure
Holt teaches a sole with a cushioning element comprising tubes (Fig. 5 #132) wherein the first pressure and the third pressure are the same pressure (Col. 10:1-41), and wherein second pressure and the fourth pressure are the same pressure different from the pressure of the first pressure and the third pressure (Col. 10:1-41).
Both Chan and Holt teach analogous inventions in the art of soles with tubes. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Chan with the teachings of Holt such that tubes would have the first pressure and the third pressure be the same pressure, and wherein the second pressure and the fourth pressure are the same pressure which are different from the pressure of the first pressure and the third pressure “to provide a desired amount of cushioning and support for different portions of a foot” (Holt Col. 10:1-5) and since the pressure within a fluid filled chamber in a footwear sole is a results effective variable with the results being the cushion and support provided to the wearer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bondie US 6122785.
Regarding Claim 14, Chan discloses the article of footwear of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first cushioning element is a foam.
Bondie teaches a sole with a cushioning element comprising tubes (Fig. 4 #34) wherein the first cushioning element is a foam (Col. 3:30-35).
Both Chan and Bondie teach analogous inventions in the art of soles with tubes. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Chan with the teachings of Bondie such that tubes would be made of foam because, “foam, within both the air chambers and the interconnecting air passages, slows the flow of air between chambers. This regulation or restriction of the air flow from one chamber to the next, prevents the air chambers from deflating as quickly as air chambers in a pad with no restriction of the air flow between chambers” (Bondie Col. 1:56-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 of claims 1 and 27 and 35 USC 103 of claims 2-5, 14, and 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732