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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s amendment in which claims 1, 14, and 17 have been amended, and claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nurse (US 2011/0047816).
Regarding claim 1, Nurse discloses a sole structure for a shoe, comprising: a forefoot portion (111); a heel portion (113); a midfoot portion (112) coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion, the midfoot portion comprising a plurality of connectors (240b, 240c) disposed on a ground-facing side of the midfoot portion, the plurality of connectors comprising a first connector (240c) and a second connector (240b), the first connector located closer to the forefoot portion than the second connector; and a resilient component (230) coupled to the first connector and the second connector, wherein the midfoot portion has a resting state in which the resilient component has a first length longer than a resting length of the resilient component (wherein the resilient component is stretched in in the resting state: paragraph 0034; Fig. 3A), wherein, when the midfoot portion bends in a dorsiflexion direction, the first connector and the second connector move away from each other and pull the resilient component to a second length longer than the first length (paragraph 0034; Fig. 3B), and wherein, when the midfoot portion bends in a plantarflexion direction, the first connector and the second connector move toward each other and allow the resilient component to relax to a third length shorter than the first length (paragraphs 0026, 0028-0034, 0036; Fig. 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Nurse discloses that the midfoot portion has a neutral bending axis, and the resilient component is vertically spaced apart from the neutral bending axis (wherein the resilient component is spaced below the plate 220).
Regarding claim 3, Nurse discloses that the resilient component comprises an elastic band (paragraph 0036; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Nurse discloses that the resilient component is removably coupled to the first connector and the second connector such that a wearer can replace the resilient component with a different resilient component (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 5, Nurse discloses that the midfoot portion has a dorsiflexion bending stiffness in the dorsiflexion direction and a plantarflexion bending stiffness in the plantarflexion direction, the plantarflexion bending stiffness being lower than the dorsiflexion bending stiffness (wherein the bands are stretched in dorsiflexion and unstretched in plantarflexion).
Regarding claim 6, Nurse discloses that the resilient component is a first resilient component, wherein the plurality of connectors comprises a third connector and a fourth connector, the third connector located closer to the forefoot portion than the fourth connector, and wherein the sole structure comprises a second resilient component coupled to the third connector and the fourth connector, the second resilient component being vertically spaced apart from the neutral bending axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nurse discloses that the first connector and the second connector are arranged along a first axis in the resting state, and the third connector and the fourth connector are arranged along a second axis in the resting state different from the first axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Nurse discloses that the first axis and the second axis are spaced apart from each other along a transverse axis of the midfoot portion, and wherein the first axis and the second axis are each approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (second and third connectors/resilient components from the medial edge; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Nurse discloses that the first axis and the second axis are spaced apart from each other along a transverse axis of the midfoot portion, wherein the first axis is disposed at a first nonzero angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion and the second axis is disposed at a second nonzero angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (outermost medial and lateral connectors/resilient components; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Nurse discloses that the first axis extends in a forward medial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion and the second axis extends in a forward lateral direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Nurse discloses that the first axis and the second axis are spaced apart from each other along a transverse axis of the midfoot portion, wherein the first axis is approximately parallel to the second axis (second and third connectors/resilient components from the medial edge; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Nurse discloses that the first resilient component has a first stiffness and the second resilient component has a second stiffness that is different than the first stiffness (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 13, Nurse discloses that the plurality of connectors comprises a fifth connector and a sixth connector, the fifth connector located closer to the forefoot portion than the sixth connector, the sole structure comprises a third resilient component coupled to the fifth connector and the sixth connector, the third resilient component being vertically spaced apart from the neutral bending axis, the first connector and the second connector are arranged along a first axis approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion in the resting state (second or third connectors/resilient components from the medial edge; Fig. 2), the third connector and the fourth connector are arranged along a second axis in the resting state different from the first axis, the second axis extending in a forward medial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (first connector/resilient component from medial edge), and the fifth connector and the sixth connector are arranged along a third axis in the resting state different from the first axis and the second axis, the third axis extending in a forward lateral direction relative to the longitudinal axis (first connector/resilient component from lateral edge; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Nurse discloses an insert (one of the tuning members 230) coupled to the midfoot portion and located within a recess (paragraph 0033, lines 1-2) between the first connector and the second connector.
Regarding claim 15, the insert limits relative motion between the first connector and the second connector when the midfoot portion bends in the plantarflexion direction (wherein the tuning member stretches during plantarflexion; paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 16, Nurse discloses a guide (370b) disposed between the first connector and the second connector, wherein a portion of the resilient component engages the guide between the first connector and the second connector (wherein the resilient component runs through recess 380) (paragraphs 0041-0042; Fig. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 17, Nurse discloses that the insert is removably coupled to the midfoot portion between the guide and the first connector or the guide and the second connector (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 18, Nurse discloses that the midfoot portion bridges a gap (between 350a and 350b) between the forefoot portion and the heel portion (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Nurse discloses a shoe having the sole structure of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Nurse discloses that each of the forefoot portion and the heel portion comprise cleats (protrusions; paragraph 0042).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 11,864,624), herein Smith, in view of Amos et al. (US 2012/0036739), herein Amos.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a sole structure for a shoe, comprising: a forefoot portion (110); a heel portion (108); a midfoot portion (112) coupled to the forefoot portion and the heel portion, the midfoot portion comprising a plurality of connectors disposed on a ground-facing side of the midfoot portion (wherein the top side of the sole may be ground-facing depending on the orientation of the shoe), the plurality of connectors comprising a first connector (head portion of notch 132) and a second connector (head portion of notch 130), the first connector located closer to the forefoot portion than the second connector; and a resilient component (140) coupled to the first connector and the second connector, wherein the midfoot portion has a resting state in which the resilient component has a first length, wherein, when the midfoot portion bends in a dorsiflexion direction, the first connector and the second connector move away from each other and pull the resilient component to a second length longer than the first length, and wherein, when the midfoot portion bends in a plantarflexion direction, the first connector and the second connector move toward each other and allow the resilient component to relax to a third length shorter than the first length (column 6, line 64-column 7, line 11). (column 5, line 6-column 7, line 11; Fig. 1-4).
Smith does not disclose that the first length is longer than a resting length of the resilient component. Amos teaches a sole structure having a plurality of connectors (52, 54) on a ground-facing side of the sole structure, and a resilient component (30, 68, 70) coupled to the connectors (paragraphs 0030, 0035; Fig. 1). The sole structure can have a resting state (neutral position) in which the resilient component has a first length longer than a resting length (biasing members 68, 70 are in tension; paragraph 0037; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the resilient component of Smith in tension (such that the first length is longer than a resting length), as taught by Amos, in order to provide different support and restorative force characteristics to the sole, depending on the needs of the user.
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses that the midfoot portion has a neutral bending axis, and the resilient component is vertically spaced apart from the neutral bending axis (wherein the resilient component is in the top half of the sole; Fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses that the resilient component comprises an elastic band (column 5, lines 52-54; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses that the resilient component is removably coupled to the first connector and the second connector such that a wearer can replace the resilient component with a different resilient component (column 5, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses that the midfoot portion has a dorsiflexion bending stiffness in the dorsiflexion direction and a plantarflexion bending stiffness in the plantarflexion direction, the plantarflexion bending stiffness being lower than the dorsiflexion bending stiffness (wherein the bands are stretched in dorsiflexion and unstretched in plantarflexion).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses that the resilient component is a first resilient component, wherein the plurality of connectors comprises a third connector and a fourth connector, the third connector located closer to the forefoot portion than the fourth connector, and wherein the sole structure comprises a second resilient component coupled to the third connector and the fourth connector, the second resilient component being vertically spaced apart from the neutral bending axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses that the first connector and the second connector are arranged along a first axis in the resting state, and the third connector and the fourth connector are arranged along a second axis in the resting state different from the first axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses that the first axis and the second axis are spaced apart from each other along a transverse axis of the midfoot portion, and wherein the first axis and the second axis are each approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses that the first axis and the second axis are spaced apart from each other along a transverse axis of the midfoot portion (Fig. 2), but the embodiment of Fig. 1-4 does not disclose that the first axis is disposed at a first nonzero angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion and the second axis is disposed at a second nonzero angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion. However, the embodiment of Fig. 6-9 teaches that the elastic members may be disposed at nonzero angles relative to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (see particularly Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the first and second axes at nonzero angles, as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 6-9, in order to provide different support and restorative forces to the foot, depending on the needs of the individual user.
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches that the first axis extends in a forward medial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion and the second axis extends in a forward lateral direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses that the first axis and the second axis are spaced apart from each other along a transverse axis of the midfoot portion, wherein the first axis is approximately parallel to the second axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses that the resilient components may have different mechanical properties from one another (column 5, lines 61-63), but does not specifically disclose that they have different stiffnesses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second resilient components with different stiffnesses in order to provide specific support and restorative forces to the foot, depending on the needs of the individual user.
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses the plurality of connectors comprises a fifth connector and a sixth connector, the fifth connector located closer to the forefoot portion than the sixth connector, the sole structure comprises a third resilient component coupled to the fifth connector and the sixth connector, the third resilient component being vertically spaced apart from the neutral bending axis, the first connector and the second connector are arranged along a first axis approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion in the resting state (Fig. 2).
The embodiment of Fig. 1-4 does not disclose that the third axis is disposed at a first nonzero angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion and the second axis is disposed at a second nonzero angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion. However, the embodiment of Fig. 6-9 teaches that the elastic members may be disposed at nonzero angles relative to a longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (see particularly Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the second and third axes at nonzero angles, as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 6-9, in order to provide different support and restorative forces to the foot, depending on the needs of the individual user. Smith teaches that the second axis extends in a forward medial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion and the third axis extends in a forward lateral direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the midfoot portion (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses that the midfoot portion bridges a gap (114) between the forefoot portion and the heel portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses a shoe having the sole structure of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses that each of the forefoot portion and the heel portion comprise cleats (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732