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
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, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feller (7380353) in view of Barry (5052130).
Feller shows An article of footwear comprising:
an outsole (100);
an upper (112) coupled to the outsole;
a midsole (114) arranged on the outsole, the upper and the midsole defining a foot cavity; and
a segmented support plate (108 and 110) positioned between the outsole and the midsole, the segmented support plate including a plurality of segments (108 and 110), the plurality of segments including (i) a first segment (110) having a longitudinal dimension that is greater than a lateral dimension of the first segment, and (ii) a second segment (108) having a longitudinal dimension that is less than a lateral dimension of the second segment, wherein the outsole includes a recess (120) formed in an upper surface of the outsole with the first segment positioned within the recess substantially as claimed except for a hole in the outsole to expose the first plate. Barry teaches providing holes (see figure 3 at 20’, 20” and/or 20’’’) in an outsole to expose a plate (20). It would have been obvious to provide holes in the outsole as taught by Barry to expose underlying plates in the footwear of Feller to allow a user to view the underlying plates and/or to reduce weight and materials.
In reference to claims 12 and 15, see figures.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 11, 12, and 15 above, and further in view of Giese (5572805).
Feller as modified above shows footwear substantially as claimed except for dividing the second plate into three plates. Giese teaches forming a plate series (see figures 122-125) comprising a first plate (31) and separated second, third, and fourth plates (31A). It would have been obvious to form the forefoot plate as a series as taught by Giese in the footwear of Feller as modified above to increase flexibility and decrease weight.
In reference to claims 2-6, 13, 14, and 17-20, see figure 122 of Giese which teaches the shapes and arrangements.
In reference to claims 8 and 9, see Feller figures 2 and 6, Feller has a bore (between the fins of 134) in which the outsole fills (see figure 2 between 132), recesses (120 and 130), and the plate is exposed (see figure 6.
In reference to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the plate to be less than 5mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Foxen (2016/0029741).
Feller as modified above shows footwear substantially as claimed except for the exact material for the plate. Foxen teaches the use of carbon fiber material (see paragraph [0042]) for a plate element (40). It would have been obvious to use carbon fiber material as taught by Foxen in the footwear of Feller as modified above to reduce weight and increase durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly applied reference to Barry teaches the new limitations.
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.
The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
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.
In order to avoid potential delays, Technology Center 3700 is encouraging FAXing of responses to Office Actions directly into the Center at (571)273-8300 (FORMAL FAXES ONLY). Please identify Examiner Marie Bays of Art Unit 3732 at the top of your cover sheet.
Any inquiry concerning the MERITS of this examination from the examiner should be directed to Marie Bays whose telephone number is (571) 272-4559. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Thurs 6-4. Alternatively if the Examiner cannot be reached, please contact the Examiners SPE Alissa Tompkins at 571-272-3425.
/MARIE D BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732