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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-9 are currently pending. Claims 1-4, and 7-9 have been amended and claims 10-15 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seepersad et al. (US 2016/0032997).
Regarding claims 1-2, Seepersad discloses a structure comprising a lattice of posts forming an opening between the posts and an appendage (410) attached to a post (390) of the posts (Fig. 4). By nature of being within the opening the appendage reduces a size of the opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The appendage partially extending over the opening and is non-load bearing as it does not bear a load of the lattice (0032 and 0033). Seepersad teaches that the when an applied force is increased beyond a sufficient threshold value (i.e., when the force is increased beyond the maximum design load), the lattice of posts may “snap through” (0025). The appendage (410) contacts with the posts after the elements snap through (0033). Thus, the appendages are configured to remain free of contact/ a gap is maintained with any other portion of the lattice except the connection region throughout a range of mechanical loads from zero load (e.g., Fig. 4) to a maximum design load (e.g., before snap through). Until snap through (i.e., exceeding the maximum design load), the appendages do not influence mechanical properties of the lattice as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Seepersad teaches exterior posts at an outer edge of the structure (e.g., top or bottom lateral constraint beams 390). By nature of being within the opening the appendage reduces a size of the opening at a boundary of the structure and would prevent ingress of foreign objects as claimed.
Regarding claims 4-5, Seepersad teaches exterior posts at an outer edge of the structure (e.g., top or bottom lateral constraint beams 390) and an appendage attached at a first span position; and an interior post (e.g., the middle constraint beam 390) with a second appendage attached to the interior posts at a second connection region. The second appendage attached at a second span position that is different from the first span position. As discussed above, the appendages are configured to remain free of contact with any portion of the lattice except the connection regions throughout a range of mechanical loads from zero load (e.g., Fig. 4) to a maximum design load (e.g., before snap through).
Regarding claim 6, Seepersad teaches the appendage attached to the post at a center of a span between nodes of the post (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Seepersad teaches the spacer contacting the cells after snap-through behavior (0033). As noted above, snap through is when the force is increased beyond the maximum design load (0025). Thus, the appendage is sized and positioned such that under the maximum design load a clearance gap is maintained between the appendage and all portions of the lattice except at the connection point, and the appendage exerts no mechanical force on the lattice under any load within the range of the mechanical loads from zero load to the maximum design load.
Regarding claim 8, the spacer reduced the size of the opening by being in it, and thus would prevent ingress of a foreign object of a predetermined minimum size. The appendage remaining free of contact with the lattice except at the connection region throughout the range of mechanical loads (i.e., from zero load (e.g., Fig. 4) to a maximum design load (e.g., before snap through)).
Regarding claim 9, Seepersad teaches the cellular structure incorporated into the sole of a shoe and teaches that the maximum design load corresponds to the applied weight to the midsole during use (0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 05/29/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the specification and drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicants arguments over the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seepersad have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed appendage never contact the lattice through the entire load range except at the connection region. Whereas, the spacers are Seepersad are designed to make contact with beams of the cells after snap-through. Furthermore, Applicant argues that Seepersad addresses an entirely different problem and is not designed for the problem of foreign object ingress into open-foam lattice structures.
Applicants specification teaches that maximum target load is the maximum weight and/or pressure designed to be supported by the midsole (see specification paragraph 0032). Seepersad teaches that when the force applied to the curved beam members is increased beyond a sufficient threshold value, “snap through” of the members may occur (0025). Arguably, “snap through” is caused when the members undergo a force exceeding the maximum design load. The members may contact the spacer after snap through, thus any contact of the spacer and members is after exceeding the maximum design load.
With regards to applicant’s arguments that Seepersad addresses an entirely different problem it is noted that in an anticipation rejection a reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.
Correspondence
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights