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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the a plurality of columns” in Claim 14 should read “the plurality of columns”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the color coating does not fill spaces between the plurality of struts of the unit cells on which the color coating is coated” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how a coating can both be deposited on the exterior surface of the unit cells and also not fill any spaces between struts of the unit cells, as the coating, while thin, would clearly take up some space between the struts. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to not entirely filling spaces, or not filling the entire space between struts of the unit cell.
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) 1-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrault et al. (US 2018/0271213).
Regarding Claim 1, Perrault et al. teaches a sole (1300) for an article of footwear, the sole comprising: a three-dimensional mesh (320) comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells (322), each interconnected unit cell comprising: a plurality of struts (324), a plurality of nodes (326) at which one or more struts are connected (paragraph [0102], “unit cells 322 include a plurality of struts 324 defining a three dimensional shape of a respective unit cell 322. The interconnection (valence) between unit cells 322 may be defined by a plurality of nodes 326 at which one or more struts are connected”), and a plurality of sub-cells (see annotated Fig.) each composed of two or more of the plurality of the struts and one or more of the nodes of the unit cell (annotated fig. 9B shows the sub-cells each being composed on two or more struts and one or more nodes), and wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells are arranged in a plurality of columns comprising at least two of the unit cells stacked on top of each other between an upper-facing side of the sole and a ground-facing side of the sole (figs. 15A-B show the unit cells being arranged in columns of at least 2 stacked unit cells).
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sub-cells of each of the plurality of unit cells comprise a soft sub-cell and a stiff sub-cell. However, Perrault et al. teaches wherein the stiffness of individual struts making up the sub cells may be adjusted (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134,” examiner again notes that midsole 130 is a different embodiment however Perrault et al. teaches “midsole 130 may be the same as or similar to midsole, 300” (paragraph [0087])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Perrault et al. as described above such that the plurality of sub-cells of each of the plurality of unit cells comprise a soft sub-cell and a stiff sub-cell so as to customize the sole to the wearer’s needs (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Regarding Claim 2, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein each unit cell comprises a plurality of soft sub-cells and a plurality of stiff sub-cells, a first upper quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of soft sub-cells, a second upper quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of stiff sub-cells, a first lower quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of stiff sub-cells, and a second lower quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of soft sub-cells. However, Perrault et al. teaches each unit cell having a first upper quadrant, a second upper quadrant, a first lower quadrant, and a second lower quadrant (see annotated fig. 9A, B), and further teaches wherein the stiffness of individual struts making up the sub cells may be adjusted (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Perrault et al. as described above such that the unit cell comprises a plurality of the soft sub-cells and a plurality of the stiff sub-cells, a first upper quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of soft sub-cells, a second upper quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of stiff sub-cells, a first lower quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of stiff sub-cells, and a second lower quadrant comprising at least one of the plurality of soft sub-cells so as to customize the sole to the wearer’s needs (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Regarding Claim 3, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: the first upper quadrant comprises two of the soft sub-cells, the second upper quadrant comprises two of the stiff sub-cells, the first lower quadrant comprises two of the stiff sub-cells, and the second lower quadrant comprises two of the soft sub-cells. However, Perrault et al. teaches each unit cell having a first upper quadrant, a second upper quadrant, a first lower quadrant, and a second lower quadrant (see annotated fig. 9A, B), and further teaches wherein the stiffness of individual struts making up the sub cells may be adjusted (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Perrault et al. as described above such the first upper quadrant comprises two of the soft sub-cells, the second upper quadrant comprises two of the stiff sub-cells, the first lower quadrant comprises two of the stiff sub-cells, and the second lower quadrant comprises two of the soft sub-cells so as to customize the sole to the wearer’s needs (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Regarding Claim 4, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein each unit cell (134) comprises eight sub-cells (annotated fig. 9B shows a unit cell comprising eight sub cells).
Regarding Claim 5, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the eight sub-cells comprise four of the soft sub-cells and four of the stiff sub-cells. However, Perrault et al. teaches wherein the stiffness of individual struts making up the sub cells may be adjusted (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Perrault et al. as described above such that the eight sub-cells comprise four soft sub-cells and four stiff sub-cells so as to customize the sole to the wearer’s needs (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Regarding Claim 6, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the eight sub-cells comprise a plurality of the soft sub-cells and a plurality of the stiff sub-cells. However, Perrault et al. teaches wherein the stiffness of individual struts making up the sub cells may be adjusted (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Perrault et al. as described above such that the eight sub-cells comprise a plurality of soft sub-cells and a plurality of stiff sub-cells so as to customize the sole to the wearer’s needs (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Regarding Claim 7, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the eight sub-cells comprise: an upper-forward-medial soft sub-cell, an upper-forward-lateral soft sub-cell, an upper-rearward-medial stiff sub-cell, an upper-rearward-lateral stiff sub-cell, a lower-forward-medial stiff sub-cell, a lower-forward-lateral stiff sub-cell, a lower-rearward-medial soft sub-cell, and a lower-rearward-lateral soft-sub cell. However, Perrault et al. teaches wherein the stiffness of individual struts making up the sub-cells may be adjusted (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Perrault et al. as described above such that the eight sub-cells comprise: an upper-forward-medial soft sub-cell, an upper-forward-lateral soft sub-cell, an upper-rearward-medial stiff sub-cell, an upper-rearward-lateral stiff sub-cell, a lower-forward-medial stiff sub-cell, a lower-forward-lateral stiff sub-cell, a lower-rearward-medial soft sub-cell, and a lower-rearward-lateral soft-sub cell so as to customize the sole to the wearer’s needs (paragraph [0090], “Parameters of midsole 130 that may be customized to an individual's needs include, but are not limited to: i) the volumetric shape of midsole 130, ii) the stiffness (including for example compressive strength, shear strength and/or bending strength and/or torsional stiffness) of struts defining the interconnected unit cells 134”).
Regarding Claim 14, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of columns are arranged in a transverse stack of the unit cells, the transverse stack comprising an exterior column of unit cells defining at least a portion of the perimeter sidewall of the three-dimensional mesh and an interior column of unit cells disposed interior of the exterior column of unit cells (annotated fig. 15B shows the columns being arranged in a transverse stack comprising an exterior column defining a portion of the perimeter sidewall and an interior column interior of the exterior column).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
618
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrault et al. (US 2018/0271213) in view of.
Regarding Claim 15, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 14, as discussed in the rejections above. Perrault et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells comprise a first color (Examiner notes that the unit cells are a physical object and therein necessarily comprise a first color).
Perrault et al. does not teach a color coating coated on a portion of the transverse stack, wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells comprise a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color.
Attention is drawn to Miner et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Miner et al teaches a sole for an article of footwear. Miner et al. further teaches a color coated on a portion of the sole, wherein the sole comprises a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color (paragraph [0049] teaches “In particular, sole system 100 is provided with an overall color scheme in which each portion has a first color 101 along forefoot portion 10 and a second color 103 along heel portion 14. First color 101 may be substantially different from second color 103.” And paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.). Still other embodiments can use materials having a predetermined color” therein the sole can clearly comprise a first color and the color coating on a second portion of the sole can have a second different color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. to include the teachings of Miner et al. such that a color coating is coated on a portion of the transverse stack, wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells comprise a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color so as to increase the aesthetic appeal of the sole and provide a pleasing visual effect.
Regarding Claim 16, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein the color coating is coated on at least a portion of the interior column of unit cells and is not coated on the exterior column of unit cells.
Attention is drawn to Miner et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Miner et al teaches a sole for an article of footwear, and a color coated on a portion of the sole, wherein the sole comprises a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color (paragraph [0049] teaches “In particular, sole system 100 is provided with an overall color scheme in which each portion has a first color 101 along forefoot portion 10 and a second color 103 along heel portion 14. First color 101 may be substantially different from second color 103.” And paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.). Still other embodiments can use materials having a predetermined color” therein the sole can clearly comprise a first color and the color coating on a second portion of the sole can have a second different color). Miner et al. further teaches wherein the color coating is coated on at least a portion of the sole and is not coated on the second portion of the sole (paragraph [0051] teaches “the overall multicolor scheme for sole system 100 may be achieved by coloring each member of sole system 100 in a corresponding manner. In some embodiments, each member may include at least two different colored portions,” therein the color coating can clearly be coated on one portion of the sole and not coated on the second portion to create two different colored portions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. with the teachings of Miner et al. such that the color coating is coated on at least a portion of the interior column of unit cells and is not coated on the exterior column of unit cells so as to increase the aesthetic appeal of the sole and provide a pleasing visual effect.
Regarding Claim 17, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein the color coating is coated on at least a portion of the interior column of unit cells and is not coated on the perimeter side of the three-dimensional mesh.
Attention is drawn to Miner et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Miner et al teaches a sole for an article of footwear, and a color coated on a portion of the sole, wherein the sole comprises a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color (paragraph [0049] teaches “In particular, sole system 100 is provided with an overall color scheme in which each portion has a first color 101 along forefoot portion 10 and a second color 103 along heel portion 14. First color 101 may be substantially different from second color 103.” And paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.). Still other embodiments can use materials having a predetermined color” therein the sole can clearly comprise a first color and the color coating on a second portion of the sole can have a second different color). Miner et al. further teaches wherein the color coating is coated on at least a portion of the sole and is not coated on the second portion of the sole (paragraph [0051] teaches “the overall multicolor scheme for sole system 100 may be achieved by coloring each member of sole system 100 in a corresponding manner. In some embodiments, each member may include at least two different colored portions,” therein the color coating can clearly be coated on one portion of the sole and not coated on the second portion to create two different colored portions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. with the teachings of Miner et al. such that the color coating is coated on at least a portion of the interior column of unit cells and is not coated on the perimeter side of the three-dimensional mesh so as to increase the aesthetic appeal of the sole and provide a pleasing visual effect.
Regarding Claim 18, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein the color coating comprises a powder coating or a paint coating.
Attention is drawn to Miner et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Miner et al teaches a sole for an article of footwear, and a color coated on a portion of the sole, wherein the sole comprises a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color (paragraph [0049] teaches “In particular, sole system 100 is provided with an overall color scheme in which each portion has a first color 101 along forefoot portion 10 and a second color 103 along heel portion 14. First color 101 may be substantially different from second color 103.” And paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.). Still other embodiments can use materials having a predetermined color” therein the sole can clearly comprise a first color and the color coating on a second portion of the sole can have a second different color). Miner et al. further teaches wherein the color coating comprises a powder coating or a paint coating (paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. to include the teachings of Miner et al. such that the color coating comprises a powder coating or a paint coating so as to allow the color to be easily changed based on the wearer’s request.
Regarding Claim 19 in view of the indefiniteness as explained above, Perrault et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above.
Perrault et al. does not teach wherein the color coating does not fill spaces between the plurality of struts of the unit cells on which the color coating is coated.
Attention is drawn to Miner et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Miner et al teaches a sole for an article of footwear, and a color coated on a portion of the sole, wherein the sole comprises a first color and the color coating comprises a second color different from the first color (paragraph [0049] teaches “In particular, sole system 100 is provided with an overall color scheme in which each portion has a first color 101 along forefoot portion 10 and a second color 103 along heel portion 14. First color 101 may be substantially different from second color 103.” And paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.). Still other embodiments can use materials having a predetermined color” therein the sole can clearly comprise a first color and the color coating on a second portion of the sole can have a second different color). Miner et al. further teaches wherein the color coating does not fill spaces between the plurality of struts of the unit cells on which the color coating is coated (paragraph [0054] teaches “Other components or members may include coatings, films or other coloring layers that cover over a substrate material to provide coloring (e.g., paints, colored films, colored resins, etc.),” wherein as the coating is clearly a thin layer, it would necessarily not fill the entire space between the plurality of struts of the unit cells on which the color coating is deposited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrault et al. to include the teachings of Miner et al. such that the color coating does not fill spaces between the plurality of struts of the unit cells on which the color coating is coated so as to not allow the color coating to impact the cushioning ability of the sole.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11992084. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are minor and obvious. See comparison table below:
Instant App '940
US 11992084
1
A sole for an article of footwear, the sole comprising: a three-dimensional mesh comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells, each interconnected unit cell comprising: a plurality of struts, a plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected, and a plurality of sub-cells each composed of two or more of the plurality of the struts and one or more of the nodes of the unit cell, wherein the plurality of sub-cells of each of the plurality of unit cells comprise a soft sub-cell and a stiff sub-cell, and wherein the plurality of interconnected unit cells are arranged in a plurality of columns comprising at least two of the unit cells stacked on top of each other between an upper-facing side of the sole and a ground-facing side of the sole.
1
A sole for an article of footwear, the sole comprising: a three-dimensional mesh comprising: a plurality of anisotropic interconnected unit cells, each anisotropic interconnected unit cell comprising: a plurality of struts, a plurality of nodes at which one or more struts are connected, and a plurality of sub-cells each composed of two or more of the plurality of the struts and one or more of the nodes of the unit cell, wherein the plurality of sub-cells of each unit cell comprise a soft sub-cell and a stiff sub-cell, and wherein the soft sub-cell comprises a first isotropic lattice structure type comprising a first arrangement of struts, and wherein the stiff sub-cell comprises a second isotropic lattice structure type different from the first isotropic lattice structure type and comprising a second arrangement of struts different from the first arrangement of struts.
2
The sole of claim 1, wherein each unit cell comprises a plurality of the soft sub-cells and a plurality of the stiff sub-cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. Claim 20 recites limitations that are not previously disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art.
Claims 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 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, 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights