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 without traverse of Group II (article of footwear) and Species I (bladder (200) as shown in figures 1A-1E)) in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 24 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
To the extent that the withdrawn claims get rejoined, applicant should amend them during prosecution. Accordingly, if the independent claim is no longer generic then applicant is encourage to cancel the withdrawn claims.
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.
Claims 17-23,25-32 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0368941 (Chen) in view of US 5353525 (Grim).
Regarding claims 17-23,25-32 and 34-36, Chen discloses an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (100) including:
an upper base member (102) formed from one or more upper component parts; and
a bladder (104) engaged with the upper base member, the bladder comprising:
a first thermoplastic layer (barrier layer 166a) fixed to a second thermoplastic layer (barrier layer 166b) at a seam (layers are joined by heat sealing, welding, etc. (at least see ¶0060) forming peripheral flange 152 and web 156), wherein an interior chamber is defined between the first thermoplastic layer and the second thermoplastic layer and inside the seam (at least see figure 5);
a foam material located in the interior chamber (see ¶0062 which teaches bladder 104 includes pads 154a-154c wherein the pads are formed of resilient foamed material); and
a sole structure (200) engaged with the upper.
Chen lacks teaching:
a first through hole opening is defined through the first thermoplastic layer, the first through hole opening permitting fluid from an external environmental area to enter the interior chamber,
a first fluid line in fluid communication with the interior chamber and with the external environmental area, wherein the first fluid line is separate from the first through hole opening, and
a first valve located and configured with respect to the first fluid line to allow fluid to exit the interior chamber via the first fluid line but inhibiting fluid from the external environmental area from entering the interior chamber via the first fluid line.
Grim teaches a bladder (e.g. 34) in an article of footwear, wherein the bladder
a first through hole opening (very small plurality of holes 48 as shown in figure 3) is defined through the first thermoplastic layer, the first through hole opening permitting fluid from an external environmental area to enter the interior chamber (see col. 4, lines 25-31),
a first fluid line (conduit as shown in figure 3 with release/bleed valve 46)) in fluid communication with the interior chamber and with the external environmental area, wherein the first fluid line is separate from the first through hole opening (see figure 3), and
a first valve (valve) located and configured with respect to the first fluid line to allow fluid to exit the interior chamber via the first fluid line but inhibiting fluid from the external environmental area from entering the interior chamber via the first fluid line (see col. 4, lines 13-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide bladder as taught by Chen with a first through hole opening & a first fluid line and valve, as taught by Grim, so that pressure with the bladder can be properly maintained and provide variable support for the user’s foot.
Regarding claim 21, The footwear as taught by the combination above has a plurality of small holes and therefore are inherently capable of allowing fluid (air) from the external environmental area to enter the interior chamber through the first through hole opening (holes 48 as taught above) at a fluid entry rate that delays expansion of the foam material to an expanded configuration.
Regarding claims 22-23, The footwear as taught by the combination above has a resilient foam material and when a sufficient force is applied (e.g. a soccer ball), the expanded foam material will compress to create excess fluid which would exit through the interior chamber through the first fluid lane and first valve (46) and the through the small through openings (48) therefore will inherently perform the functional language as claimed. Similarly with regard to the functional language used in claims 19 and 29-32, the article of footwear as taught by the combination above is inherently capable of performing said functional language.
Regarding claims 25-26 and 34-35, see individual pad (154a) of bladder (104) which as a narrowing to define a first chamber lobe and a second chamber lobe. At least see figure 8.
With regard to claims 27 and 36, the foam material taught above doesn’t’ disclose the change in volume between the expanded configuration and the compressed configuration. However, it would appear to be an obvious design choice to construct the foam material wherein the material changes with the volume in the range as claimed inasmuch as a number of different resilient material could be used. This would appear to be suitable depending on the individual wearer, the activity for be used for and the type of material. That is, these parameters are recognized in the art to be a variable that is result effective. Generally, it is considered to have been obvious to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such variables. For example, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since the applicant has not demonstrated or even alleged that specific range of change of volume produces any unexpected results, it is concluded that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to determine a workable or even optimum parameters for the resilient material and volume change and thereby arrive with a value in the range as claimed.
Regarding claims 18 and 28, the size of the small holes (48) is not disclosed. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the holes with a width dimension of less than 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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 1955).
With regard to all the functional language and language of intended use, the article of footwear as taught by the combination above has all the structure as claimed and would clearly seem to be inherently capable of performing the functions as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 57-1272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556