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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on March 16, 2026, claims 1 and 9-11 have been amended, and claim 18 has been canceled. Claim 21 is new. Accordingly, claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending in this application with claims 11-17 and 19-20 being previously withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on March 16, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated December 16, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “without any other external forces” at lines 3-4. It is unclear what forces are to be included or not included in “any other external forces”. For example, do the forces include a force of a wearer of the footwear walking, a force of gravity applied to the fluid and/or footwear? Furthermore, it is unclear to what other structure are the any other forces meant to be considered “external”. For example, are the other forces meant to be external to the reservoir, the bladder system, the sole structure, the article of footwear as a whole, or some other structure? Additionally, it is unclear what initial force is being applied separate from the “any other external forces”. For example, is some unrecited biasing force present? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that Applicant amend the language to clearly recite the intended claim limitation as supported by the disclosure as originally filed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood when applying prior art.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 21 (claim 21 as best can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0219745 to Moreno-Collado (hereinafter, “Moreno”) in view of US 2011/0067264 to Doyle (hereinafter, “Doyle”).
Regarding claim 1, Moreno teaches an article of footwear comprising: a sole structure having a lateral side, a medial side (See Moreno, Figs. 1-6; shoe device includes lateral and medial sides), and at least one adjustable height bladder system comprising at least one cavity containing a fluid configured to change a banking angle of the article of footwear (See Moreno, Figs 1-6; hydraulic chambers (13) each having a cavity; hydraulic actuators (22) are capable of changing a banking angle of the article of footwear by increasing or decreasing the amount of fluid in the hydraulic chambers (13); [0031]); one or more sensors configured to detect a change in a directional movement of the article of footwear (See Moreno, Fig. 6; sensor array (27) is capable of detecting a hypothetical change in a directional movement of the article of footwear via tracking stepping frequency and position of a foot in a walking cycle; [0030]); and a fluid control system configured to adjust an amount of inflation of the at least one adjustable height bladder system by adjusting an amount of the fluid in the at least one cavity based on a detected change in the directional movement (See Moreno, Figs. 1-6; hydraulic actuators (22) corresponding to hydraulic chambers (13), each actuator capable of adjusting an amount of fluid inflation of corresponding chambers based on a hypothetical detected change in directional movement; [0027]), wherein the banking angle is an angle at which an upper surface of the sole structure is inclined about a longitudinal axis of the article of footwear relative to a horizontal plane (See Moreno, Figs. 1-6; hydraulic actuators are capable of changing a banking angle about a longitudinal axis of the article of footwear between upper sole element (11, 12) relative to bottom sole elements (14, 15)).
That said, although Moreno teaches an article of footwear and sole structure, Moreno is silent to the explicit presence of an upper.
However, Doyle, in a related fluid-filled adjustable sole structure art, is directed to a pneumatic inflation device disposed within the sole of a shoe (See Doyle, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Doyle teaches an upper (See Doyle, Fig. 3; shoe (100) having upper on sole).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the upper disclosed by Doyle in the article of footwear of Moreno for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing a covering over a top of the foot of the wearer as is commonly known in the art.
That said, although Moreno teaches a fluid control system and further discloses an external introduction of the fluid to the sole structure, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed above) is silent to wherein the fluid control system comprises: at least one reservoir spaced apart from the at least one cavity of the at least one bladder system and located external to the sole structure; at least one fluid line extending from the at least one reservoir to the at least one bladder system; and at least one valve positioned between the at least one reservoir and the at least one bladder system.
However, Doyle further teaches wherein the fluid control system comprises: at least one reservoir spaced apart from the at least one cavity of the at least one bladder system and located external to the sole structure (See Doyle, Figs. 1-7; fluid control system of Fig. 1 for controlling fluid to a plurality of bladders in a sole of shoe (100); pump (12) includes internal chamber (80) which stores fluid and is external to the sole structure); at least one fluid line extending from the at least one reservoir to the at least one bladder system; and at least one valve positioned between the at least one reservoir and the at least one bladder system (See Doyle, Figs. 1-6; fluid line extending from pump (12) to device (18) and conduits to various bladders; at least one of flow valves (34, 36, 38) positioned between internal chamber (80) and bladders).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the fluid control and pumping system disclosed by Doyle on the modified article of footwear of Moreno to direct flow the various chambers of Moreno for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, housing the adjustable fluid systems directly on the article of footwear itself as opposed to requiring a supplemental system that would need to be separately carried by a wearer.
Regarding claim 2, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the one or more sensors are located on a bottom surface of the sole structure and configured to identify changes in forces exerted on the bottom of the sole structure (See Moreno, Figs. 1-2 and 6; sensor array (27) is located on a bottom surface of support insole (11) within sole structure; sensor array (27) is capable of identifying changes in forces exerted on the bottom of the sole structure via tracking stepping frequency and position of a foot in a walking cycle; [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the one or more sensors are located on both the lateral side and the medial side of the sole structure, the one or more sensors being configured to identify a difference between a first force exerted on the lateral side of the sole structure and a second force exerted on the medial side of the sole structure (See Moreno, Fig. 6; sensory array (27) is located on both lateral and medial sides of the sole structure and is capable of identifying a hypothetical difference between lateral and medial side forces; [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the at least one adjustable height bladder system comprises a first bladder system positioned in a forefoot region of the article of footwear and a second bladder system positioned in a midfoot region of the article of footwear (See annotated Fig. 4 of Moreno below; first one of hydraulic chambers (13) in forefoot region, and a second one of hydraulic chambers (13) in midfoot region; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Moreno
Regarding claim 7, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein the one or more sensors are positioned on at least one of the first and second bladder systems, within at least one of the first and second bladder systems, or both on and within at least one of the first and second bladder systems (See Moreno, Fig. 6 and annotated Fig. 4 above; sensor array (27) is positioned on first and second hydraulic chambers (13); giving importance to the term “or” in the claim, the prior art meets at least one of the listed alternative limitations and, therefore, meets the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 8, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the at least one adjustable height bladder system is on one of the lateral side and the medial side of the sole structure, and the other one of the lateral side and the medial side of the sole structure does not have an adjustable height bladder system (See annotated Fig. 4 of Moreno above; hydraulic chambers on medial side of sole structure and are not on lateral side).
Regarding claim 9, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the sole structure comprises a banking plate and an anchor plate that are configured to pivot relative to one another to define the banking angle (See Moreno, Figs. 1-6; sole structure includes upper sole element (11, 12), i.e., banking plate, and bottom sole elements (14, 15), i.e., anchor plate, which are capable of pivoting relative to one another).
Regarding claim 10, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the at least one valve is operable between a closed position in which the fluid is prevented from flowing between the at least one reservoir and the at least one bladder system, and an open position in which the fluid can flow between the at least one reservoir and the at least one bladder system (See Doyle, Figs. 1-6; at least one of flow valves (34, 36, 38) positioned between internal chamber (80) and bladders, said valves operable to allow flow or prevent flow between internal chamber (80) and bladders).
Regarding claim 21, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the at least one reservoir is biased to expel fluid out of the at least one reservoir (See Doyle, Figs. 1-6; chamber (80) of pump (12) is capable of being biased to expel fluid out of the chamber (80)), such that opening the at least one valve between the at least one reservoir and the at least one adjustable height bladder system, without any other external forces, causes fluid in the at least one reservoir to be delivered to the at least one adjustable height bladder system (See Doyle, Figs. 1-6; opening of valve (i.e., at least one of valves (34, 36, 38) causes fluid in chamber (80) to be delivered to corresponding bladder in the modified article of footwear of Moreno as discussed above; fluid is delivered under influence of pump without other external forces; see rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno in view of Doyle, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0035752 to Walker et al. (hereinafter, “Walker”).
Regarding claim 4, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more gyroscopes.
However, Walker, in a related fluid adjustable sole structure art, is directed to a sole structure that includes chambers and transfer channels for containing and adjusting fluid levels (See Walker, Figs. 1-6; abstract). More specifically, Walker teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more gyroscopes (See Walker, Fig. 6; sensors system of FSRs (31, 32) and IMU (113) may include gyroscope; [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the gyroscope disclosed by Walker in the sensor array of the modified article of footwear of Moreno to detect and measure changes in orientation and motion of the shoe, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known sensor type for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one sensor type performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., detecting and measuring orientation and motion of the shoe.
Regarding claim 5, the modified article of footwear of Moreno (i.e., Moreno in view of Doyle, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more accelerometers.
However, Walker, in a related fluid adjustable sole structure art, is directed to a sole structure that includes chambers and transfer channels for containing and adjusting fluid levels (See Walker, Figs. 1-6; abstract). More specifically, Walker teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more accelerometers (See Walker, Fig. 6; sensors system of FSRs (31, 32) and IMU (113) may include accelerometers; [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the accelerometer disclosed by Walker in the sensor array of the modified article of footwear of Moreno to detect and measure changes in orientation and motion of the shoe, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known sensor type for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one sensor type performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., detecting and measuring orientation and motion of the shoe.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. USPN 5,230,249 to Sasaki et al.; USPN 5,113,599 to Cohen et al.; and USPN 5,222,312 to Doyle are each directed to articles of footwear having bladder systems and fluid control systems.
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 MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights