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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 11-24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehagen (2018/0035751) in view of Mason et al. (2018/0368516).
Regarding claim 11, Rehagen teaches an article of footwear, comprising:
an upper (figs 6-7, para 0045); and a sole coupled to the upper, the sole comprising:
an outsole (member 22) configured to engage the ground, and
a midsole core (member 12) disposed within the sole chamber, the midsole core comprising:
a base plate (member 20) disposed on the upper surface of the outsole, and a plurality of hollow pillars (member 44) projecting upwardly from the base plate and filled with air (para 0023), wherein the plurality of pillars is arranged along the length of the sole from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole (fig 7), wherein the plurality of pillars includes a first set of pillars fluidly connected together such that air is permitted to flow between pillars of the first set of pillars (para 0033).
Rehagen does not explicitly teach a midsole rim disposed on an upper surface of the outsole and extending along a perimeter of the outsole, the midsole rim comprising an exterior surface defining a sidewall of the sole, wherein the midsole rim and the outsole define a sole chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mason teaches a sole having a midsole rim (fig 2 annotated above) disposed on an upper surface of the outsole and extending along a perimeter of the outsole (member 25), the midsole rim comprising an exterior surface defining a sidewall of the sole, wherein the midsole rim and the outsole define a sole chamber (figs 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Rehagen by adding a midsole rim of Mason in order to add another of protection and cushioning to the sole.
Regarding claim 12, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the plurality of pillars includes a second set of pillars, each pillar of the second set being fluidly isolated from the remainder of the pillars (Rehagen, para 0033 showing that just some of the pillars (i.e. sub chambers) are fluid communication with each other).
Regarding claim 13, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the first set of pillars is arranged along a length of the sole from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole (Rehagen, fig 7).
Regarding claim 14, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the plurality of pillars include: a lateral row of pillars extending from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole, a medial row of pillars extending from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole, and a central row of pillars disposed between the medial and lateral row of pillars and extending from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole (Rehagen, fig 7).
Regarding claim 15, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the first set of pillars include the central row of pillars (Rehagen, fig 7 annotated above).
PNG
media_image2.png
247
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the first set of pillars includes one or more pillars disposed in the lateral row located in the forefoot region of the sole (the area ) and one or more pillars disposed in the lateral row located in the heel region of the sole, and wherein the first set of pillars includes one or more pillars disposed in the medial row located in the forefoot region of the sole and one or more pillars disposed in the medial row located in the heel region of the sole (Rehagen, fig 7 annotated above).
Regarding claim 17, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the base plate includes a plurality of channels defined on the bottom surface of the base plate, fluidly interconnecting the first set of pillars (Rehagen, para 0033).
Regarding claim 18, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the midsole core comprises: a first flange extending from a lateral side of the base plate in the forefoot region of the sole and a plurality of lateral forefoot pillars projecting upwardly from the first flange, and a second flange extending from the lateral side of the base plate in the heel region of the sole and a plurality of lateral heel pillars projecting upwardly from the second flange (Rehahen, member 58, para 0035 and 0039).
Regarding claim 19, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the midsole rim comprises a first recess disposed on a lateral side of the midsole rim in the forefoot region of the sole and a second recess disposed on the lateral side of the midsole rim in the heel region of the sole, and wherein the lateral forefoot pillars are received in the first recess of the midsole rim and the lateral heel pillars are received in the second recess of the midsole rim (Mason, fig 17, members 30a and 30b).
Regarding claim 20, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the sole chamber extends through the midsole rim, and an interior surface of the midsole rim and the upper surface of the outsole bound the sole chamber (Rehagen, fig 2 annotated above and figs 3-5).
Regarding claim 21, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the first set of pillars includes a single row of pillars fluidly connected in series in a longitudinal direction from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole .
Regarding claim 22, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the first set of pillars includes: a forefoot row of pillars extending in the transverse direction in the forefoot region of the sole; and a heel row of pillars extending in the transverse direction in the heel region of the sole, wherein the single row of pillars of the first set extends longitudinally from the forefoot row of pillars of the first set to the heel row of pillars of the first set (Rehagen, fig 7 annotated above).
Regarding claim 23, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the plurality of pillars includes a second set of pillars (Mason, fig 7), each pillar of the second set being fluidly isolated from the remainder of the pillars (Rehagen, para 0033 showing that just some of the pillars (i.e. sub chambers) are fluid communication with each other).
Regarding claim 24, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the second set of pillars includes: a lateral row of pillars extending from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole; and a medial row of pillars extending from the heel region of the sole to the forefoot region of the sole, wherein the single row of pillars of the first set is disposed between the medial and lateral rows of pillars of the second set (Mason, fig 7).
Regarding claim 30, the modified footwear Rehagen-Mason discloses the plurality of pillars are spatially separated by void space defined in the sole chamber of the sole (Rehagen, figs 1-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-29 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, date 04-06-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because applicant argues that the combination does not teach a midsole rim and the outsole together making a sole chamber. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Mason does teach the midsole rim and a sole making of a sole chamber (fig 2 annotated above).
Conclusion
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 BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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 D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights