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 .
Patent Practitioner
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated claims 1-7 and 16-19 as reading upon the elected invention with claims 8-15 and 20 being withdrawn from further consideration. An action on the merits follows.
Drawings
Fig. 4 is objected to because the drawing appears to show multiple views in a single view. It is suggested that each view instead be separately labeled (e.g., Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B). The written description of the specification, including the brief description of the drawings, should be similarly updated to reflect any changes to the labeling of the figures.
The drawings are also objected to because Fig. 8 appears to show an improper exploded view. The exploded view should include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts.
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.
Specification – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “The disclosure relates to a footwear adjustment system […]” at line 1 is implied phraseology. In order to overcome this objection, it is suggested that the phrase be removed from the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [037], “the 3 fluid and/or air-retention compartments” should read “the three fluid and/or air-retention compartments” to avoid confusion with respect to the similarly numbered reference characters throughout the specification
At [055], “includes 6 external ports” should read “includes six internal ports” to avoid confusion with respect to the similarly numbered reference characters throughout the specification
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Bluetooth”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application at least at [044], [066], and [071]. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. For example, the term could instead read “BLUETOOTH® (i.e., short-range wireless technology)”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “each forming” should read “each hose of the set of hoses forming”
At lines 3-4, “a respective fluid or air-retention compartment” should read “a respective one of the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments”
Claim 3 is objected to because at lines 3-4, “the fluid or air-retention compartments” should read “the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments”.
Claim 7 is objected to because at line 1, “each of the set of hoses” should read “each hose of the set of hoses”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “each forming” should read “each hose of the set of hoses forming”
At lines 3-4 “a respective fluid or air-retention compartment” should read “a respective one of the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments”
At line 6, “the fluid or air-retention compartments” should read “the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7 and 16-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a firmness and/or comfort of the sole assembly” at line 6. It is unclear what quality or property is considered a “comfort of the sole assembly”, as comfort is a subjective feeling that varies from person to person. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a firmness of the sole assembly”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the one or more external ports” and “the one or more internal ports” at lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “one or more external ports” and “one or more internal ports”, respectively. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a plurality of I/O ports” at line 2. It is unclear if the I/O ports are meant to refer back to or somehow relate or include the previously recited ports of claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. This is also unclear in light of the further limitations of claim 4 which depends from claim 3. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation of claim 3 instead read “wherein the I/O box comprises a plurality of I/O ports including the one or more external ports and the one or more internal ports”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “facilitates exchange of the fluid or air” at line 3. It is unclear what constitutes facilitating an exchange as opposed to only exchanging. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fluid or air” in the claim. The limitation additionally appears to attempt to recite active method step language in the product claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “is configured to exchange fluid or air”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the rear end of the sole assembly” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a rear end of the sole assembly”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “the door is in one of an opened state or a closed state” at lines 2-3. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to recite a functional limitation of the door. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the door is positionable in one of an opened state or a closed state”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the plurality of I/O ports of the I/O box” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on the other claims, it is further unclear if claims 6-7 were meant to instead depend from claim 3 instead of claim 1, as the I/O box is first introduced in claim 3. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If not meant to instead depend from claim 3, it is suggested that the limitation read “a plurality of I/O ports of an I/O box”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “A footwear article comprising a sole assembly comprising: […]” at line 1. It is unclear which of the recited structures is meant to comprise the subsequently recited limitations, as several structures previously introduced in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “A footwear article comprising a sole assembly, the sole assembly comprising: […]”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 16 further recites the limitation “facilitates exchange of the fluid or air” at lines 5-6. It is unclear what constitutes facilitating an exchange as opposed to only exchanging. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fluid or air” in the claim. The limitation additionally appears to attempt to recite active method step language in the product claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “is configured to exchange fluid or air”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 16 further recites the limitation “an external supply” at line 4. It is unclear to what material or the like the external supply is meant to refer (i.e., an external supply of what?). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “an external supply of the fluid or the air”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-7 and 17-19 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 16-19, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0368926 to Bailly et al. (hereinafter, “Bailly”).
Regarding claim 1, Bailly teaches a footwear adjustment system, comprising: a sole assembly comprising a plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments (See Bailly, Figs. 8A-9; footwear (100) having sole (104) having fluid bladders (200, 400); abstract); a set of hoses, each forming a fluid or air communication channel between a respective fluid or air-retention compartment and a control apparatus (See Bailly, Figs. 4A-4B; 11A-12C; fluid lines (202, 402) each forming fluid communication channel between respective bladders (200, 400) and fluid distributor (500); [0124]); and the control apparatus configured to dynamically adjust fluid or air-levels within the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments to control a firmness and/or comfort of the sole assembly based on at least one of external commands or sensed conditions (See Bailly, Figs. 4A-4B and 11A-12C; fluid distributor (500) is capable of adjusting fluid levels in bladders (200, 400) to control a firmness based on sensed conditions and/or commands; [0102], [0137]).
Regarding claim 2, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the one or more external ports are in fluid or air communication with the one or more internal ports through connector hoses (See Bailly, Fig. 12A-12C; connector (700) of distributor (500) includes fluid ports on surface (704S) which are more internal to the fluid system of the bladders (200, 400) than more external ports on surface (704B) which act as outlets from the fluid system to the remainder to fluid distributor (500); ports are connected via flexible tubes as depicted in Fig. 10; [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claims 1-2 above) further teaches wherein the sole assembly further comprises an Input/Output (I/O) box, wherein the I/O box comprises a plurality of I/O ports, and wherein the I/O box facilitates exchange of the fluid or air between the fluid or air-retention compartments and an external supply through the plurality of I/O ports (See Bailly, Fig. 12A; connector (700) includes a plurality of input and output ports including those ports discussed with respect to claim 3 above and is further capable of exchanging fluid between bladders (200, 400) and an external fluid source via said ports; see rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion).
Regarding claim 4, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the connector hoses are configured to receive the fluid or air from one or more external ports of the plurality of I/O ports, and supply the fluid or air to one or more internal ports of the plurality of I/O ports (See Bailly, Figs. 5A-5F and 12A-12C; tubes extending between ports of connector (700) are capable of receiving fluid from external ports and supply the fluid to the internal ports).
Regarding claim 5, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claims 1-4 above) further teaches wherein the I/O box further comprises a door positioned exterior to the rear end of the sole assembly, wherein the door is in one of an opened state or a closed state, and wherein the door is configured to cover one or more of the plurality of I/O ports when the door is in the closed state (See Bailly, Figs. 8A-9; cap (506) is positionable to cover connector (700) of distributor (500) on rear end of footwear (100) between a closed and an opened state, wherein cap (506) covers the connector (700) of distributor (500) in the closed state; cap (506) is positionable in Figs. 8A-9 similar to as shown in embodiment of Figs. 15A-15B; [0119]).
Regarding claim 6, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein each of the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments comprises a pressure valve (bladders (200, 400) can each include a pressure relief valve; [0182]).
Regarding claim 7, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein each of the set of hoses connects the pressure valve of each of the plurality of fluid or air-retention compartments with one or more of the plurality of I/O ports of the I/O box (See Bailly, Figs. 5A-5F and 12A-12C; fluid lines (202, 402) connects relief valves of each bladder (200, 400) with the ports of connector (700) of distributor (500) at least indirectly, i.e., all components are connected in fluid communication).
Regarding claim 16, Bailly teaches a footwear article comprising a sole assembly comprising: one or more fluid or air-retention compartments (See Bailly, Figs. 8A-9; footwear (100) having sole (104) having fluid bladders (200, 400); abstract); a set of hoses, each forming a fluid or air communication channel between a respective fluid or air-retention compartment and an Input/Output (I/O) box (See Bailly, Figs. 4A-4B; 11A-12C; fluid lines (202, 402) each forming fluid communication channel between respective bladders (200, 400) and connector (700) of fluid distributor (500); [0124]); and the I/O box comprising a plurality of I/O ports, wherein the I/O box facilitates exchange of the fluid or air between the fluid or air-retention compartments and an external supply through the plurality of I/O ports (See Bailly, Fig. 12A; connector (700) includes a plurality of input and output ports and is further capable of exchanging fluid between bladders (200, 400) and an external fluid source via said ports).
Regarding claim 17, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein the footwear article is an athletic shoe (footwear (100 is capable of being used for athletic purposes absent additional structural limitations).
Regarding claim 18, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein the footwear article is a casual shoe (footwear (100 is capable of being used for casual purposes absent additional structural limitations).
Regarding claim 19, Bailly (as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein the footwear article is a work shoe (footwear (100 is capable of being used for work purposes absent additional structural limitations).
Pro se Disclaimer
While an applicant may prosecute the application and file papers in their application, lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicants are advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to draft and prosecute a patent application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. USPTO employees (including Pro Se Assistance and the examiner of record) cannot give legal advice. To assist applicants in making informed decisions, Pro Se Assistance can provide assistance in helping applicants navigate http://www.uspto.gov/ and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) to locate publicly available educational resources.
Responding to an Office Action
Examiner wished to direct applicant’s attention to the following information on how to respond to an office action by visiting https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions. About halfway down the page, you will find a section titled “How to respond to Official Letters”, this is where you will find how to send your response to the office. At template for such a response can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf.
Amendments
Examiner wishes to direct applicant's attention to publicly available claim drafting assistance available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/inventor-info-chat#step3 (see the February 15, 2018, program titled “Claim Drafting”).
Further, Examiner wishes to direct application’s attention to MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121 which can be found at https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/current#/result/d0e85040.html?q=1.121&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=adj&results=compact&sort=relevance&cnt=25&index=7 and provides information on how to properly make amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0009913 to Potter et al.; US 2013/0219745 to Moreno-Collado; US 2010/0094184 to Wong et al.; and US 2016/0345670 to Orand are each directed to articles of footwear with adjustable fluid distribution and/or multiple bladder cushioning compartments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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 T 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights