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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I and II in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all of the current claims are directed towards and generic to Species I and II. This is found persuasive and these two Species have been considered to be generic to the current claims. Species III-X are considered to be non elected.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1, 13-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signori (4610099).
Signori shows A sole structure for an article of footwear including a forefoot region, a heel region, and a midfoot region located between the forefoot region and the heel region, the sole structure
comprising:
an outsole (17) component including a ground-contacting surface and an upper-facing surface opposite the ground-contacting surface, the outsole component extending from the heel region to the forefoot region through the midfoot region;
a plate member (23) including a bottom plate surface adhesively fixed (see column 4 line 20) to the upper-facing surface, the plate member including a top plate surface located opposite the bottom plate surface and extending through the midfoot region into both the forefoot region and the heel region; and
a foam layer (22, see column 3 line 15 which teaches elastomeric materials which are foam materials) including a bottom foam surface adhesively fixed (see column 4 line 20) to the top plate surface at least in the midfoot region and the forefoot region; and
a fluid-filled bladder (21) component engaged with the top plate surface in the heel region, wherein the bottom foam surface overlays a top surface of the fluid-filled bladder component substantially as claimed except for a thickness of the outsole component measured directly from the ground-contacting surface to the upper-facing surface is less than 5 mm through at least 60% of a surface area of the ground-contacting surface. The outsole layer (17) is shown as being relatively thin and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the outsole with a thickness less than 5 mm through at least 60% of a surface area of the ground contacting surface, 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.
In reference to claim 13, the bladder of Signori is considered to be at least 90% in the heel region (the rear half of the sole).
In reference to claim 14, Signori does not disclose any thickness for the bladder however 12mm is considered to be an obvious thickness of a sole element and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the bladder with a thickness less than 12mm, 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.
In reference to claim 15, Signori teaches the use of moldable elastomer material (see column 4 lines 1-2) for the plate member (23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use rubber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In reference to claim 16, plate element 23 has at least 75% being thin (areas without vertical peripheral portions) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the outsole with a thickness less than 2 mm through at least 75% of a surface area of the ground contacting surface, 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.
In reference to claim 18, The outsole layer (17) is shown as being relatively thin and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the outsole with a thickness less than 2.5 mm through at least 60% of a surface area of the ground contacting surface, 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.
In reference to claim 19, The outsole layer (17) is shown as being relatively thin and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the outsole with a thickness less than 5 mm through at least 60% of a surface area of the ground contacting surface, 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. The plate element 23 has at least 75% being thin (areas without vertical peripheral portions) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the outsole with a thickness less than 4 mm through at least 75% of a surface area of the ground contacting surface, 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. The foam layer (22) is shown as being a thin layer (see figure 3) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the foam with a thickness less than 10 mm through at least 60% of a surface area of the ground contacting surface, 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.
Claim(s) 2-10, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signori in view of Chen (2024/0206588).
In reference to claims 2-4, 21, and 22, Signori shows a sole structure as noted above substantially as claimed except for the shape of the forefoot region. Chen teaches providing a lateral arm (26) and a medial arm (22) separated by a central recess (see figure 4) inasmuch as applicant has claimed and defined such. It would have been obvious to shape the forefoot region of the plate as taught by Chen in the plate in the sole structure of Signori to reduce weight and increase flexibility.
In reference to claims 5-7, Signori shows a sole structure as noted above substantially as claimed except for through holes in the plate. Chen teaches providing through holes (62 and 46) in a sole plate (16) and teaches providing a projection in the outsole (see figure 9) which extends through the hole (62). It would have been obvious to provide through holes and projection as taught by Chen in the plate in the sole structure of Signori to reduce weight and increase flexibility.
In reference to claim 8, see Chen hole at 62 in figure 7 which shows a shape as claimed.
In reference to claim 9, see Chen 46 in figure 4 which shows an elongate heel hole.
In reference to claims 10 and 20, the combination of Signori modified by Chen would inherently result in the bladder overlying the through hole in the heel as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 13-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner apologizes for the confusion in reference to the subject matter of original claim 10. A clear complete Examination of all claims is given above. This office action is nonfinal.
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
Prosecution Insights