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 .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 10/2/2025, claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 16-17, 19-20 are amended. Claim 21 is canceled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1-20 and 22 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has not overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
Applicant’s amendment has obviated some of the previously presented nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claims 12, 16, and 17 under 35 USC 112(a), Applicant argues that the specification as originally filed provides sufficient written description to support the claimed limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification does state that there may be internal welds on the foot support bladder (paragraph 106 states: “One or more interior seams or welds 404 may be provided (one shown in the example of Fig. 18), e.g., to control the shape of the foot support bladder 1710 when inflated.”), this statement does not specifically describe that these seams/welds perform the function that Applicant describes in the Remarks (limiting the height dimension of the foot support bladder in particular). The specification as originally filed does not specifically connect the presence of these seams/welds to the function of limiting the height dimension, and figures 20A and 20B, while they do illustrate the height changing, they do not show the seams/welds and the description of these figures does not explain what structure of the foot support bladder/fluid reservoir is causing this height change to occur. Further, Examiner also notes that claims 12, 16, and 17 (which were the claims previously rejected under 35 USC 112(a)) were notably not amended to include limitations regarding these internal seams/welds, while the other independent claims 1 and 6 do now include limitations directed to the internal seams/welds. Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to immediately recognize how the Applicant achieved the result of changing the overall height of the sole structure as a result of moving fluid between the fluid reservoir and foot support bladder based on this disclosure because no explanation for why the height of the foot support bladder does not change (or possibly changes to a different degree than the fluid reservoir) as fluid is moved in and out of it is provided.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 12, Applicant submits that the issues have been resolved for the same reasons as presented in regards to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a); however, as described in the arguments above in regards to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), Applicant has not amended the claim to overcome the rejection and the arguments presented are not persuasive. The rejection of claim 12 (and dependent claims by nature of dependency) is therefore maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections over Henrichot, Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning to support that the bladder of Henrichot would inherently act the same way as the bladder of the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that although Henrichot does not explicitly describe the height change as claimed, Henrichot teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, as described in the rejections below, including the newly added limitation regarding interior seams/welds, and therefore it would be expected to function in the same manner as the claimed invention. The Henrichot reference teaches bladders that are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0121). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber). If the bladder of the instant application responds to a pressure change via the addition/removal of fluid by expanding/contracting to some extent (resulting in a change in height), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that a bladder made of the same material and pressurized in the same range would respond in the same manner, absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary. The Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence for why two bladders (i.e., the bladder of Henrichot and the bladder of the instant application) that are made of the same material and pressurized within the same range would not behave in the same manner, including changing height in response to pumping fluid in/out of the chamber as claimed, and the claims as written do not include any further structural limitations that would differentiate the instant invention from the prior art. Given that Henrichot teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, if it is Applicant’s position that the bladder of Henrichot would for some reason function in a different way than claimed, then it is unclear how and why Applicant’s invention functions in the way that it allegedly does. For those reasons, the Examiner maintains that Henrichot reads on the claims as written.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from the independent claims; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, the independent claims are not allowable over the prior art. The rejections of the dependent claims are also maintained.
Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome by the amendment to claims 1 and 6; however, as described in the rejection below, the newly added limitations in claims 1 and 6 do not distinguish the instant application from the copending application in view of Henrichot. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 is therefore maintained.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 13, 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/397,103 in view of Henrichot (US 2020/0046071).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
See the claim comparison chart below. Bolded limitations are the same or essentially the same limitations. Underlining is used to indicate differences between the claims that will be discussed further. Any unformatted limitations in the App. 18/397,103 column are additional limitations that are not required by the Instant App. 18/893,509, and therefore are not included in the analysis.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 of the instant application are essentially the same as claims 1, 4-5, 13, and 18-19 of copending Application 18/397,103 (hereinafter “the copending application”), with the exception of the instant application reciting “an electronic control system” where the copending application recites “a switch” or “a switching system” and the instant application now requiring a foot support bladder “including one or more interior seams or welds” (see claim comparison chart below).
Henrichot teaches a foot support system for footwear and states “the flow control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines” (paragraph 230). Henrichot also teaches that “internal welds may be used (e.g., welding interior surfaces of the bladder surfaces together, e.g., as shown for example in U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,490) to control the shape of the bladder” (paragraph 247).
Henrichot teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of foot support systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the switching system of the copending application a specifically electronic control system because, as taught by Henrichot, it would have been the simple substitution of one known control system for another (see paragraph 230 of Henrichot) which would have yielded only the predictable result of allowing the user to control the fluid system as desired. Further, the electronic system would allow the user to control the system with an electronic device (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure”, Henrichot, paragraph 230), which would be more convenient for the user as they would not need to reach down to the footwear to manually open or close a switch, and instead they could easily do so from their smart phone even, for example, while in the middle of running. It further would have been obvious to add internal welds to the bladder of the copending application, as taught by Henrichot, in order to “control the shape of the bladder” (Henrichot, paragraph 247).
Instant App. 18/893,509
App. 18/397,103
Claim 1: A foot support system for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder including one or more interior seams or welds; a fluid reservoir; a pump including an inlet and an outlet, the outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder; a first fluid line placing the fluid reservoir in fluid communication with the inlet of the pump; a second fluid line placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and an electronic control system configured to change the second fluid line between an open configuration and a closed configuration; wherein when movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir has caused a decrease in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir and/or a collapse of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir.
Claim 1: A fluid system for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder; a fluid reservoir; a pump including an inlet and an outlet, the outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder; a first fluid line placing the fluid reservoir in fluid communication with the inlet of the pump; a second fluid line placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and a switch configured to change the second fluid line between an open configuration and a closed configuration, wherein when the second fluid line is in the closed configuration, the pump moves fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder, and wherein movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder with the second fluid line in the closed configuration decreases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir.
Claim 4: The fluid system according to claim 1, wherein after the pump has been activated with the switch in the closed configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switch to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir.
Claim 3: The foot support system according to claim 1, wherein the interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure is equalized in the foot support bladder and the fluid reservoir.
Claim 5: The fluid system according to claim 1, wherein after the pump has been activated with the switch in the closed configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switch to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration causes an immediate increase in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure is equalized throughout the fluid system.
Claim 6: A sole structure for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder including one or more interior seams or welds; a fluid reservoir; a pump including: (i) an inlet receiving fluid from the fluid reservoir and (ii) an outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder; a fluid line placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and an electronic control system configured to change the foot support bladder between: (i) a high pressure foot support configuration in which the fluid line is closed and (ii) a low pressure foot support configuration in which the fluid line is open, wherein when movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir has caused a decrease in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir and/or a collapse of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir.
Claim 13: A sole structure for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder; a fluid reservoir; a foot-activated pump including: (i) an inlet receiving fluid from the fluid reservoir and (ii) an outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder; a fluid line placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and a switching system configured to change the foot support bladder between: (i) a high pressure foot support configuration in which the fluid line is closed and (ii) a low pressure foot support configuration in which the fluid line is open, wherein when the foot support bladder is in the high pressure foot support configuration, the foot-activated pump is configured to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder, and wherein movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder decreases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir.
Claim 18: The sole structure according to claim 13, wherein after the foot-activated pump has been activated with the switching system in the high pressure foot support configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switching system to change the foot support bladder from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration increases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir.
Claim 9: The sole structure according to claim 6, wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration causes an immediate increase in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure increases in the fluid reservoir.
Claim 19: The sole structure according to claim 13, wherein after the foot-activated pump has been activated with the switching system in the high pressure foot support configuration to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder and to decrease the height dimension of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the switching system to change the foot support bladder from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration causes an immediate increase in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure increases in the fluid reservoir.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-20, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “wherein movement of sufficient fluid between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder causes a change in a height dimension of the sole structure”. This limitation lacks adequate written description. MPEP 2163.03(V) states, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In this case, the claim specifies that, as a result of movement of fluid between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder (both are components of the sole structure), there will be a change in the height dimension of the sole structure. Although there is language in the specification that supports this claim language, there is insufficient description in the specification to explain how that particular result (change in the height dimension of the entire sole structure) is achieved. MPEP 2163.03(V) further states, “’Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.’ Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” Paragraphs 120-121 of the instant specification state, in a similar manner to the claim, that movement of fluid will result in a change in the height dimension of the overall sole structure or article of footwear, and points to figures 20A-20B which illustrate the change in height. However, it is not clear why the overall height of the sole structure would change if fluid is simply moved from one chamber (fluid reservoir) to another (foot support bladder), as the overall amount of fluid present in the system would be the same. The specification states (and figures 20A-20B show) that the height of the fluid reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it and increase as fluid returns into it, but the specification and figures do not explain why that movement of fluid out of the fluid reservoir would not be associated with a corresponding equal increase of height of the foot support bladder as fluid is pumped into it, and vice versa (which would result in no net change in the height of the overall sole structure). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to immediately recognize how the Applicant achieved the result of changing the overall height of the sole structure as a result of moving fluid between the fluid reservoir and foot support bladder based on this disclosure because no explanation for why the height of the foot support bladder does not change (or possibly changes to a different degree than the fluid reservoir) as fluid is moved in and out of it is provided.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from a high pressure foot support setting to a low pressure foot support setting increases the height dimension of the sole structure”. This limitation lacks adequate written description. MPEP 2163.03(V) states, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In this case, the claim specifies that, as a result of movement of fluid between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder (both are components of the sole structure) which occurs when the system is changed from the high pressure setting to the low pressure setting, there will be an increase in the height dimension of the sole structure. Although there is language in the specification that supports this claim language, there is insufficient description in the specification to explain how that particular result (increase in the height dimension of the entire sole structure) is achieved. MPEP 2163.03(V) further states, “’Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.’ Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” Paragraphs 120-121 of the instant specification state, in a similar manner to the claim, that movement of fluid will result in a change in the height dimension of the overall sole structure or article of footwear, and points to figures 20A-20B which illustrate the change in height. However, it is not clear why the overall height of the sole structure would change if fluid is simply moved from one chamber (fluid reservoir) to another (foot support bladder), as the overall amount of fluid present in the system would be the same. The specification states (and figures 20A-20B show) that the height of the fluid reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it and increase as fluid returns into it, but the specification and figures do not explain why that movement of fluid into of the fluid reservoir would not be associated with a corresponding equal decrease of height of the foot support bladder as fluid is pumped out it, and vice versa (which would result in no net change in the height of the overall sole structure). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to immediately recognize how the Applicant achieved the result of increasing the overall height of the sole structure as a result of moving fluid from the foot support bladder to the fluid reservoir when the system is changed from the high pressure setting to the low pressure setting based on this disclosure because no explanation for why the height of the foot support bladder does not change (or possibly changes to a different degree than the fluid reservoir) as fluid is moved out of it is provided.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from a high pressure foot support setting to a low pressure foot support setting causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the sole structure as fluid pressure increases in the fluid reservoir”. This limitation lacks adequate written description. MPEP 2163.03(V) states, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In this case, the claim specifies that, as a result of movement of fluid between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder (both are components of the sole structure) which occurs when the system is changed from the high pressure setting to the low pressure setting, there will be an increase in the height dimension of the sole structure. Although there is language in the specification that supports this claim language, there is insufficient description in the specification to explain how that particular result (increase in the height dimension of the entire sole structure) is achieved. MPEP 2163.03(V) further states, “’Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.’ Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” Paragraphs 120-121 of the instant specification state, in a similar manner to the claim, that movement of fluid will result in a change in the height dimension of the overall sole structure or article of footwear, and points to figures 20A-20B which illustrate the change in height. However, it is not clear why the overall height of the sole structure would change if fluid is simply moved from one chamber (fluid reservoir) to another (foot support bladder), as the overall amount of fluid present in the system would be the same. The specification states (and figures 20A-20B show) that the height of the fluid reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it and increase as fluid returns into it, but the specification and figures do not explain why that movement of fluid into of the fluid reservoir would not be associated with a corresponding equal decrease of height of the foot support bladder as fluid is pumped out it, and vice versa (which would result in no net change in the height of the overall sole structure). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to immediately recognize how the Applicant achieved the result of increasing the overall height of the sole structure as a result of moving fluid from the foot support bladder to the fluid reservoir when the system is changed from the high pressure setting to the low pressure setting based on this disclosure because no explanation for why the height of the foot support bladder does not change (or possibly changes to a different degree than the fluid reservoir) as fluid is moved out of it is provided.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 8, 12-20, 22 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir between 3 mm and 35 mm”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether the height dimension should increase BY between 3 mm and 35 mm or increase TO between 3 mm and 35 mm. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring the height dimension to increase by between 3 mm and 35 mm.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir between 3 mm and 35 mm”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether the height dimension should increase BY between 3 mm and 35 mm or increase TO between 3 mm and 35 mm. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring the height dimension to increase by between 3 mm and 35 mm.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “wherein movement of sufficient fluid between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder causes a change in a height dimension of the sole structure”. This limitation is unclear because it appears that if fluid is moved just between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder, any decrease in height of the fluid reservoir caused by the fluid leaving the fluid reservoir would be counteracted by an equivalent increase in height of the foot support bladder caused by that same fluid entering the foot support bladder. If the system is a closed system (no fluid added from an external source), it is unclear how the height of the entire sole structure would change as a result of fluid being moved from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder. The instant specification does not provide a clear description of how this effect (a change in height of the entire sole structure) is achieved. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that if the fluid is moved between the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir as claimed, it would achieve the claimed result of changing the height of the sole structure insofar as Applicant has claimed or described.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration increases the height dimension of the sole structure”. This limitation is unclear because it appears that if fluid is moved just between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder, any increase in height of the fluid reservoir caused by the fluid entering the fluid reservoir would be counteracted by an equivalent decrease in height of the foot support bladder caused by that same fluid leaving the foot support bladder. If the system is a closed system (no fluid added from an external source), it is unclear how the height of the entire sole structure would change as a result of fluid being moved between the foot support bladder and the fluid reservoir. The instant specification does not provide a clear description of how this effect (a change in height of the entire sole structure) is achieved. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that if the fluid is moved between the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir as claimed, it would achieve the claimed result of changing the height of the sole structure insofar as Applicant has claimed or described.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the sole structure as fluid pressure increases in the fluid reservoir”. This limitation is unclear because it appears that if fluid is moved just between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder, any increase in height of the fluid reservoir caused by the fluid entering the fluid reservoir would be counteracted by an equivalent decrease in height of the foot support bladder caused by that same fluid leaving the foot support bladder. If the system is a closed system (no fluid added from an external source), it is unclear how the height of the entire sole structure would change as a result of fluid being moved between the foot support bladder and the fluid reservoir. The instant specification does not provide a clear description of how this effect (a change in height of the entire sole structure) is achieved. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that if the fluid is moved between the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir as claimed, it would achieve the claimed result of changing the height of the sole structure insofar as Applicant has claimed or described.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henrichot (US 2020/0046071).
Regarding claim 1, Henrichot discloses: A foot support system for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder (102) including one or more interior seams or welds (“internal welds may be used (e.g., welding interior surfaces of the bladder surfaces together, e.g., as shown for example in U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,490) to control the shape of the bladder” paragraph 247); a fluid reservoir (104); a pump (110) including an inlet and an outlet (see annotated figure 3C below), the outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder (“the check valves and/or one way valves (e.g., valves 114, 118, other present check valves, etc.) could be reversed in the systems of FIGS. 3A-3C, e.g., to create a system that moves fluid from the reservoir 104 to the foot support bladder” paragraph 258; the annotated figures 3C and 3A below have been annotated to reflect this reversal); a first fluid line (see annotated figure 3C below) placing the fluid reservoir in fluid communication with the inlet of the pump (“the check valves and/or one way valves (e.g., valves 114, 118, other present check valves, etc.) could be reversed in the systems of FIGS. 3A-3C, e.g., to create a system that moves fluid from the reservoir 104 to the foot support bladder” paragraph 258; the annotated figures 3C and 3A below have been annotated to reflect this reversal); a second fluid line (see annotated figure 3C below) placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir; and an electronic control system (flow control system 108; “the flow control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements ) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines” paragraph 230) configured to change the second fluid line between an open configuration (see figure 3A annotated below showing the open configuration) and a closed configuration (see figure 3C annotated below showing the closed configuration), wherein when movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir has caused a decrease in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir and/or a collapse of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3C of Henrichot showing the closed/high pressure configuration
PNG
media_image2.png
509
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3A of Henrichot showing the open/low pressure configuration
Regarding claim 3, Henrichot discloses: The foot support system according to claim 1, wherein the interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure is equalized in the foot support bladder and the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; the change is considered to be immediate because the fluid flow begins as soon as the switch in firmness setting is triggered; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 4, Henrichot discloses: The foot support system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control system includes an electronically controlled valve or switch that changes the second fluid line between the open configuration and the closed configuration (“the flow control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements ) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines” paragraph 230), and wherein the electronic control system further includes an input device (input system 1081) configured to receive input data indicating a desire to change fluid pressure in the foot support bladder (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 5, Henrichot discloses: The foot support system according to claim 4, further comprising a mobile computing device (electronic device 170, such as a smart phone; a smart phone is a mobile computing device) in electronic communication with the electronic control system, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to receive user input indicating a desire to change fluid pressure in the foot support bladder and to wirelessly transmit the user input to the electronic control system (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 6, Henrichot discloses: A sole structure for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder (102) including one or more interior seams or welds (“internal welds may be used (e.g., welding interior surfaces of the bladder surfaces together, e.g., as shown for example in U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,490) to control the shape of the bladder” paragraph 247); a fluid reservoir (104); a pump (110) including: (i) an inlet receiving fluid from the fluid reservoir (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) and (ii) an outlet supplying fluid to the foot support bladder (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above); a fluid line placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above); and an electronic control system (flow control system 108; “the flow control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements ) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines” paragraph 230) configured to change the foot support bladder between: (i) a high pressure foot support configuration in which the fluid line is closed (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; figure 3C shows the high pressure configuration in which the fluid line is closed) and (ii) a low pressure foot support configuration in which the fluid line is open (see annotated figure 3A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; figure 3A shows the low pressure configuration in which the fluid line is open), wherein when movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir has caused a decrease in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir and/or a collapse of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases the height dimension of the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 7, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 6, wherein the electronic control system includes an input device (input system 1081) configured to receive input data indicating a desire to change fluid pressure in the foot support bladder (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 9, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 6, wherein the interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the fluid reservoir as fluid pressure increases in the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; the change is considered to be immediate because the fluid flow begins as soon as the switch in firmness setting is triggered; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 10, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 6, further comprising a mobile computing device (electronic device 170, such as a smart phone; a smart phone is a mobile computing device) in electronic communication with the electronic control system, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to receive user input indicating a desire to change fluid pressure in the foot support bladder and to wirelessly transmit the user input to the electronic control system (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 11, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 10, wherein the mobile computing device includes a smartphone (electronic device 170 is a smart phone; “an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 12 as best understood by Examiner, Henrichot discloses: A sole structure for an article of footwear, comprising: a foot support bladder (102); a fluid reservoir (104); one or more fluid lines (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) placing the foot support bladder in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir (see annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above); and an electronic control system (flow control system 108; “the flow control system 108 includes structures (e.g., physical elements ) to selectively “pinch off” or close electronically or manually controlled flow stop members (such as pinching elements or valves), etc.) to control fluid transfer through one or more of fluid transfer lines” paragraph 230) configured to change a fluid pressure setting for the foot support bladder (“the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170” paragraph 251), wherein movement of sufficient fluid between the fluid reservoir and the foot support bladder causes a change in a height dimension of the sole structure (“pressure is increased in [foot support bladder 102] (via the step cycle pumping action of pump 110) until the pressure is high enough in [bladder 102] that activation of the pump 110 through a single pump stroke cycle is insufficient to move more fluid into the [foot support bladder 102]. More specifically, the compression force of the user’s step will compress the pump 110 bulb and, because of the valve 114, this compression will force a volume of fluid out of the pump 110 chamber and into fluid transfer line 116, 210/216. […] After one or more pump 110 bulb compression cycles, the volume of fluid moved during a pump 110 stroke cycle will not be sufficient to move additional fluid past the valve 118 and into the [foot support bladder 102]” paragraph 254; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraph; Additionally, because of the decrease in volume of fluid in the reservoir 104, it is understood that the height of the reservoir would decrease as fluid is pumped out of it by pump 110, thus causing a change in height of the sole structure insofar as described by Applicant; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 13, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein the electronic control system includes an input device (input system 1081) configured to receive input data indicating a desire to change the fluid pressure setting for the foot support bladder (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 14, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein when the electronic control system places the foot support bladder in a high pressure foot support setting (“the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170” paragraph 251), the one or more fluid lines are controlled to move fluid from the fluid reservoir to the foot support bladder through at least one of the one or more fluid lines (“the check valves and/or one way valves (e.g., valves 114, 118, other present check valves, etc.) could be reversed in the systems of FIGS. 3A-3C, e.g., to create a system that moves fluid from the reservoir 104 to the foot support bladder 102” paragraph 258; this reversed orientation is illustrated in the annotated figure 3C provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, showing the high pressure configuration with the check valves oriented such that the fluid moves from the reservoir to the foot support bladder).
Regarding claim 15, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein when the electronic control system places the foot support bladder in a low pressure foot support setting, the one or more fluid lines are controlled to move fluid such that fluid pressure in the foot support bladder equals fluid pressure in the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 16, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein when movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir has caused a decrease in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir and/or a collapse of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from a high pressure foot support setting to a low pressure foot support setting increases the height dimension of the sole structure (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 17, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein when movement of sufficient fluid from the fluid reservoir has caused a decrease in a height dimension of the fluid reservoir and/or a collapse of the fluid reservoir, interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from a high pressure foot support setting to a low pressure foot support setting causes an immediate increase in the height dimension of the sole structure as fluid pressure increases in the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system […] a user might hear and/or feel this relatively quick change of pressure” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so the volume of fluid in the chamber had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the increased volume of fluid inside the chamber would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”; Further regarding the height change, the bladders of Henrichot are made of "two thermoplastic elastomer sheet members" and "the bladder structure(s), their constructions, materials, and manufacturing methods may be conventional as are known and used in the footwear arts" and "thermo plastic materials of the types used in fluid-filled bladders for articles of footwear may be relatively flexible and pliable" (Henrichot, paragraphs 223-224) and the PSI of Henrichot overlaps that of the present application (Henrichot, low PSI of 5, para. 0254, high PSI of 30, present application low PSI of 8, high PSI of 35, para. 0155). Examiner notes that the foot support bladder and fluid reservoir of the instant application are also made of two sheets of thermoplastic elastomer material (see instant specification, paragraphs 56, 59), therefore it is understood that the action of pumping fluid into and out of chambers made of the same flexible/pliant material would result in the same response (i.e., a change in height occurs as a result of the change in pressure brought on by the change in fluid volume in the chamber due to fluid being pumped into or out of the chamber), absent specific and clear evidence to the contrary).
Regarding claim 18, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, further comprising a mobile computing device (electronic device 170, such as a smart phone; a smart phone is a mobile computing device) in electronic communication with the electronic control system, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to receive user input indicating a desire to change the fluid pressure setting for the foot support bladder and to wirelessly transmit the user input to the electronic control system (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230).
Regarding claim 19, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein the electronic control system is configured to receive input representing features of a user’s play of an electronic game and, based at least in part on the input, the electronic control system is configured to generate signals configured to change the fluid pressure setting for the foot support bladder (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230; the particulars regarding “features of a user’s play of an electronic game” have been considered intended use limitations, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above, and since the flow control system of Henrichot is configured to receive input from an electronic device, it is capable of performing the intended use and reads on the claim as written, the claim is for a sole structure, not a system for playing a game).
Regarding claim 20, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein the electronic control system is configured to receive input from one or more foot force sensors and, based at least in part on the input, the electronic control system is configured to generate signals configured to change the fluid pressure setting for the foot support bladder (“[the flow control system 108] may include an input system 1081 for receiving input commands (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from an electronic device 170, such as a smart phone, etc.) for changing foot support pressure” paragraph 230; the particulars regarding “input from one or more foot force sensors” have been considered intended use limitations, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above, and since the flow control system of Henrichot is configured to receive input from an electronic device, it is capable of performing the intended use and reads on the claim as written).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrichot in view of Hopkins (US 2021/0361030).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood by Examiner, Henrichot discloses: The foot support system according to claim 1, wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the second fluid line from the closed configuration to the open configuration increases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so its volume had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the volume increase would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”).
Henrichot does not explicitly disclose: the height dimension of the fluid reservoir increases by between 3 mm and 35 mm.
However, Hopkins teaches a fluid system wherein sufficient movement of a fluid from a first chamber (400M) to a second chamber (400L) decreases the height dimension of the first chamber by between 3 mm and 35 mm (“the height HM of the first side fluid-filled bladder 400M in its high height configuration (FIG. 3A) may be […] at least 10 mm higher […] than its height HM at the same transverse cross sectional location in its low height configuration (FIG. 3B)” paragraph 74).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the size of the fluid reservoir such that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir increase by specifically 10 mm when the system is moved from closed to open (thereby allowing fluid to flow back into the fluid reservoir), as taught by Hopkins, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the fluid reservoir. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995). See MPEP 2144. Further, Examiner notes that there is no demonstrated criticality for the specific claimed height dimension, as paragraph 123 of the instant specification lists a wide variety of potential ranges of height differentials as follows: “The height differential between H1 and H2 (with H1 greater than H2 in the illustrated example) may be within any one or more of the following ranges: at least 3 mm; at least 5 mm; at least 8 mm; at least 10 mm; at least 12 mm; at least 15 mm; at least 20 mm; between 3 mm and 35 mm; between 3 mm and 30 mm; between 3 mm and 25 mm; between 5 mm and 35 mm; between 5 mm and 30 mm; between 5 mm and 25 mm; between 8 mm and 35 mm; between 8 mm and 30 mm; between 8 mm and 25 mm; between 10 mm and 35 mm; between 10 mm and 30 mm; and/or between 10 mm and 25 mm.”
Regarding claim 8, as best understood by Examiner, Henrichot discloses: The sole structure according to claim 6, wherein interaction with the electronic control system to change the foot support bladder from the high pressure foot support configuration to the low pressure foot support configuration increases a height dimension of the fluid reservoir (“when this occurs, stops 108M and 108B are opened, which switches the system 100, 200 from the configuration shown in FIG. 3C to the configuration shown in FIG. 3A. This change allows fluid to flow from the higher pressure [foot support blader 102] to the lower pressure [fluid reservoir 104] (via lines 106, 206/216) […] to thereby equalize the pressure over the entire system” paragraph 255; the fluid reservoir previously had fluid pumped out of it (see paragraphs 253-254) so its volume had decreased and thus its height is understood to have decreased, so when the fluid is allowed to flow back into the reservoir, it is understood that the volume increase would also be accompanied by a height increase; note that since the orientation of the check valves is reversed, the fluid is flowing from the reservoir 104 to the bladder 102, opposite to how it is described in the cited paragraphs; additionally, since the electronic/input system 1081/170 was described as an alternative or addition to the physical dial 108S in paragraph 230, it is understood that the description cited above would occur after an electronic input as well, see paragraph 251 which states “the firmness setting may be changed electronically (e.g., using an input system, such as input device 170”).
Henrichot does not explicitly disclose: the height dimension of the fluid reservoir increases by between 3 mm and 35 mm.
However, Hopkins teaches a fluid system wherein sufficient movement of a fluid from a first chamber (400M) to a second chamber (400L) decreases the height dimension of the first chamber by between 3 mm and 35 mm (“the height HM of the first side fluid-filled bladder 400M in its high height configuration (FIG. 3A) may be […] at least 10 mm higher […] than its height HM at the same transverse cross sectional location in its low height configuration (FIG. 3B)” paragraph 74).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the size of the fluid reservoir such that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir increase by specifically 10 mm when the system is moved from closed to open (thereby allowing fluid to flow back into the fluid reservoir), as taught by Hopkins, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the fluid reservoir. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995). See MPEP 2144. Further, Examiner notes that there is no demonstrated criticality for the specific claimed height dimension, as paragraph 123 of the instant specification lists a wide variety of potential ranges of height differentials as follows: “The height differential between H1 and H2 (with H1 greater than H2 in the illustrated example) may be within any one or more of the following ranges: at least 3 mm; at least 5 mm; at least 8 mm; at least 10 mm; at least 12 mm; at least 15 mm; at least 20 mm; between 3 mm and 35 mm; between 3 mm and 30 mm; between 3 mm and 25 mm; between 5 mm and 35 mm; between 5 mm and 30 mm; between 5 mm and 25 mm; between 8 mm and 35 mm; between 8 mm and 30 mm; between 8 mm and 25 mm; between 10 mm and 35 mm; between 10 mm and 30 mm; and/or between 10 mm and 25 mm.”
Regarding claim 22, as best understood by Examiner Henrichot does not explicitly disclose: The sole structure according to claim 12, wherein the change in the height dimension of the sole structure is between 3 mm and 35 mm.
However, Hopkins teaches a fluid system wherein sufficient movement of a fluid from a first chamber (400M) to a second chamber (400L) decreases the height dimension of the first chamber by between 3 mm and 35 mm (“the height HM of the first side fluid-filled bladder 400M in its high height configuration (FIG. 3A) may be […] at least 10 mm higher […] than its height HM at the same transverse cross sectional location in its low height configuration (FIG. 3B)” paragraph 74).
Hopkins teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of fluid systems for footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the size of the fluid reservoir such that the height dimension of the fluid reservoir increase by specifically 10 mm when the system is moved from closed to open (thereby allowing fluid to flow back into the fluid reservoir), as taught by Hopkins, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the fluid reservoir. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995). See MPEP 2144. Further, Examiner notes that there is no demonstrated criticality for the specific claimed height dimension, as paragraph 123 of the instant specification lists a wide variety of potential ranges of height differentials as follows: “The height differential between H1 and H2 (with H1 greater than H2 in the illustrated example) may be within any one or more of the following ranges: at least 3 mm; at least 5 mm; at least 8 mm; at least 10 mm; at least 12 mm; at least 15 mm; at least 20 mm; between 3 mm and 35 mm; between 3 mm and 30 mm; between 3 mm and 25 mm; between 5 mm and 35 mm; between 5 mm and 30 mm; between 5 mm and 25 mm; between 8 mm and 35 mm; between 8 mm and 30 mm; between 8 mm and 25 mm; between 10 mm and 35 mm; between 10 mm and 30 mm; and/or between 10 mm and 25 mm.”
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732