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
Applicant’s amendment of 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are presented.
Claims 1 and 11 are presented in independent form and are amended.
The present Office action treats claims 1-20 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 05/26/2026 (see p. 8-11 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Section 102 Rejection and Section 103 rejection (p. 8-11): Applicant’s arguments are fully 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first flat engagement surface of claim 1 and second flat engagement surface of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965, newly cited] in view of [Sanderson, US 960,202, newly cited], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929, newly cited], [Peter, CH-233542-A, newly cited], [Fein, US 2,088,902, newly cited], and [Evins, US 2,907,058, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Brown discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A sole structure (see elements thereof identified hereinbelow and in annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below; it is noted the sole structure includes a, A, and B as well as a portion of the “boot” of Fig. 1) for an article of footwear (title), the sole structure comprising:
an interior arrangement A, B (i.e. the combined A and B) extending between an anterior end (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), which includes a forward-most point of the sole structure, and a posterior end (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), which includes a rearward-most point of the sole structure, the interior arrangement including (i) a forefoot element B extending from the anterior end to a first end of the forefoot element (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) and including a first material (“felt or other suitable fibrous material”; p. 1 lines 58-59), wherein the forefoot element B has a first top surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) and a first bottom surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), wherein the forefoot element includes a first flat engagement surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) at the first top surface and a first set of engagement features (“projecting portions or fingers from” the “material extended in” a “direction from the joint, so that the said felt extensions will underlie the leather” of heel element A; p. 1 lines 66-70; it is noted the engagement features are not shown in Figs. 1-3) where the first end contacts the first bottom surface (it is noted an engagement feature that extends from B and underlying A is “where” the first end contacts the bottom surface; it is noted the term “where” means “At or in what place”; “At, to, or in a place in which”; “The place or situation at, in, or to which”; where. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 23 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/where such that a feature extending from B and underlying A is “where” the first end contacts the first bottom surface), and (ii) a heel element A extending from the posterior end to a second end of the heel element (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) and including a second material (“leather”; p. 1 line 56), wherein the heel element has a second top surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) and a second bottom surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), wherein the heel element includes a second flat engagement surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) at the first top surface (although first top surface is a feature of forefoot element B, the second flat engagement surface is nonetheless “at” the first top surface insofar as the term “at” means “In or near the area occupied by; in or near the location of”; “In or near the position of”; at. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 21 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/at) and wherein the first flat engagement surface engages with the second flat engagement surface (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below); and an outsole (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) including an outer shell (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) extending between the anterior end and the posterior end, the outer shell including a ground-engaging element (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
999
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brown does not expressly disclose the interior arrangement A, B is an interior cushioning arrangement.
Brown does not expressly disclose the forefoot element B is a forefoot cushioning element.
Brown does not expressly disclose the heel element A is a heel cushioning element.
Sanderson teaches a sole structure (p. 1 line 11; Title) comprising a felt element (“felt cushion”; p. 1 lines 13-14) that is a felt cushioning element: “the use of felt so as to form a...felt cushion...to contribute...comfort” (p. 1 lines 13-15).
It 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 to have modified the sole structure of Brown such that its forefoot element is a forefoot cushioning element in order to provide comfort to the wearer, as suggested by Sanderson (p. 1 lines 13-15).
Dorgin teaches a sole structure (“innersole”; claim 1) comprising a leather element that is a leather cushioning element (“top layer” of sole structure “being of soft cushioning material such as leather”; claim 1).
Dorgin further teaches the sole structure “cushions the foot” (col. 1 line 3).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its heel element is a heel cushioning element in order to provide foot cushioning, as suggested by Dorgin (col. 1 line 3).
In adopting the modifications taught by Sanderson and Dorgin, the limitation “the interior arrangement A, B is an interior cushioning arrangement” would be met insofar as the arrangement would be a cushioning arrangement due to the cushioning of its constituent elements.
Brown does not expressly disclose the first set of engagement features is a first set of undulating engagement features.
Brown does not expressly disclose and a second set of undulating engagement features where the second end contacts the second bottom surface, wherein the first set of undulating engagement features at the first end of the forefoot cushioning element interfaces with the second set of undulating engagement features at the second end of the heel cushioning element
In further view of Brown:
Brown describes the engagement features as “projecting portions or fingers from” the “material extended in” a “direction from the joint, so that the said felt extensions will underlie the leather” of heel element A (p. 1 lines 66-70).
Brown does not describe the engagement features as interfacing with engagement features of the heel element. Nevertheless, the engagement features could “underlie” the heel element in such a way as to be interfacing with engagement features of the heel element; however, Brown is silent as to whether this is the case or not.
Peter teaches a sole structure (title) wherein (Figs. 1 and 3) an engagement feature e (i.e. one of “tabs e”; p. 3 line 20) of a first sole element 1 interfaces with (“engage in one another in the manner of tongue and groove”; p. 3 lines 20-21) an engagement feature d at an end of a second sole element 2.
Peter further teaches the “sole parts...are overlapped at their contact points and” secured to each other “to form a cohesive board” (p. 3 line 19).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that it is provided with a second set of engagement features where the second end contacts the second bottom surface, wherein the first set of engagement features at the first end of the forefoot cushioning element interfaces with the second set of engagement features at the second end of the heel cushioning element in order to help form a cohesive sole structure, as suggested by Peter (p. 3 line 19), and/or to yield the predictable result(s) of: aiding in proper positioning of heel element relative to forefoot element during sole structure via mutual engagement of engagement features.
Regarding the limitation undulating engagement features:
Fein teaches a sole structure (title) wherein an engagement feature (i.e. the “curved contour” of “insert 2”; col. 1 lines 44-45) of sole element 2 is an undulating engagement feature (Fig. 1) interfacing with a second undulating engagement feature (i.e. the “curved contour” of “insole 3”; col. 1 line 45) of sole element 3. Fein further teaches the undulations “are employed to furnish added friction at the edges to hold the insert in place while it is being handled before the insole is tacked in position on the last” (col. 1 lines 40-43).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its first set of engagement features is a first set of undulating engagement features and its second set of engagement features is a second set of undulating engagement features, the first set of undulating engagement features at the first end of the forefoot cushioning element interfaces with the second set of undulating engagement features at the second end of the heel cushioning element, in order to help hold the cushioning elements in place with respect to each other during sole structure manufacture, as suggested by Fein (col. 1 lines 40-43), and/or to provide added friction to the joint between the cushioning elements, as also suggested by Fein (col. 1 lines 40-43) for the purpose of providing joint strength by virtue of the friction provided thereby.
Brown does not expressly disclose the outer shell including a peripheral wall configured to extend from the ground-engaging element toward an upper of the article of footwear along a perimeter of the outer shell.
Evins teaches a sole structure 14 comprising an outer shell 14 including a peripheral wall 16 configured to extend from a ground-engaging element 24 toward an upper 12 of an article of footwear 10 along a perimeter of the outer shell (col. 1 lines 8-27; Figs. 1 and 3-5).
Evins further teaches the peripheral wall is configured to “overlap the lower edge of the upper, and which is adhesively secured thereto so as to eliminate the necessity of stitching the outsole to the upper” (col. 2 lines 8-10).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its outer shell includes a peripheral wall configured to extend from the ground-engaging element toward an upper of the article of footwear along a perimeter of the outer shell in order to permit adhesive securement of upper and outsole in such a way as to avoid stitching, as taught by Evans (col. 2 lines 8-10) and or to permit overlap between the outer shell and the upper via the peripheral wall of the outer shell for the purpose of securing the outer shell to the upper, as also taught by Evans (col. 2 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 3:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation wherein the interior cushioning arrangement includes a first surface having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second surface formed by the heel cushioning element, wherein the first surface and the second surface form a continuous surface of the interior cushioning arrangement (Figs. 1 and 3 of Brown wherein it is noted the forefoot/heel elements thereof are modified to be cushioning elements as explained in above treatment of claim 1 such that the surfaces shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are of cushioning elements).
Regarding claim 4:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation further comprising a plate a (i.e. a of Brown) disposed adjacent to a first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion formed by the heel cushioning element (Figs. 1 and 3 of Brown wherein it is noted the forefoot/heel elements thereof are modified to be cushioning elements as explained in above treatment of claim 1 such that the surfaces shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are of cushioning elements; it is further noted the term “adjacent” means “Close to; lying near”; adjacent. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 23 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjacent).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 01/10/2025].
Regarding claim 2:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer.
However, Hopkins teaches, and in relation to a sole structure (Abstract; Title) for footwear (para 3) that “A firmer heel and softer forefoot could allow a forefoot to compress a sole structure more in the forefoot region, creating a higher heel offset feel. A softer heel and a firmer forefoot could have the opposite effect and create a lower heel offset feel” (para 68).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer in order to yield a sole structure that affords a lower heel offset feel, as suggested by Hopkins (para 68), wherein said heel offset feel would be desirable to at least some user of the sole structure who prefers a low heel offset feel in his/her footwear.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 4:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Although Brown discloses a plate a (see above 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 4), the plate a fails to meet the further limitations of both claim 4 and also claim 5; i.e. the plate a of Brown is not disposed adjacent to a first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion formed by the heel cushioning element and also disposed within a socket formed in the first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement.
However, Luethi teaches a plate 17 disposed adjacent a first surface, wherein a forefoot element 12 and a heel element 14 cooperate to form the first surface (Figs. 2-6).
In Luethi, the plate 17 is disposed within a socket (the socket within which the plate is provided; Figs. 2 and 4-5) formed in the first surface (Figs. 2 and 4-5)
Luethi further teaches the plate 17 is a “metatarsal support...provided in the metatarsal region above” the forefoot element and the heel element (para 39).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that it is provided with yet another plate disposed adjacent to the first surface; further wherein said yet another the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface in order to provide metatarsal support for a wearer by said yet another plate, as suggested by Luethi (para 39).
Regarding claim 5:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, Evins, and Luethi teaches The sole structure of claim 4, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation wherein the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface (see above treatment of claim 4 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], [Evins, US 2,907,058], and [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1] as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of [Brandstatter, US 2013/0000146, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, Evins, and Luethi teaches The sole structure of claim 4, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose further comprising an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the interior cushioning arrangement and including a third material.
Brandstatter teaches providing a sole structure with an insole upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of a plate 16 than an interior cushioning arrangement comprising a forefoot cushioning element 17 and a heel cushion 18 (18 is “cushioning” (para 26), and 17 has a hardness (para 17; para 34) such that it is configured to cushion). A “midsole 16 is disposed beneath the insole 15 in the shoe” and a “torsion stabilizer 17 and the heel wedge 18 (heel cushioning) are disposed beneath the” insole 15 (para 30, Fig. 1). “The hardness and flexibility of the shoe can be adjusted at least in part via the insole 15, and in this manner, can define the field of use of the shoe. For this a strobel lasted embodiment having a comparably soft (textile) insole can provide a high degree of flexibility...A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that it is provided with an insole that is an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the interior cushioning arrangement and including a third material in order to yield a sole structure wherein the insole upper cushioning element is capable of affording hardness and/or flexibility to the sole structure by virtue of the properties of the insole upper cushioning element, as taught by Brandstatter.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], [Evins, US 2,907,058], [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1], and [Brandstatter, US 2013/0000146] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, Evins, Luethi, and Brandstatter teaches The sole structure of claim 6, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 6, the modified Brown does not meet the limitation wherein the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the third material has a third durometer, wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer, and wherein the third durometer is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer.
However, Hopkins teaches, and in relation to a sole structure (Abstract; Title) for footwear (para 3) that “A firmer heel and softer forefoot could allow a forefoot to compress a sole structure more in the forefoot region, creating a higher heel offset feel. A softer heel and a firmer forefoot could have the opposite effect and create a lower heel offset feel” (para 68).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that the first material has a first durometer, wherein the second material has a second durometer, and wherein the second durometer is less than the first durometer in order to yield a sole structure that affords a lower heel offset feel, as suggested by Hopkins (para 68), wherein said heel offset feel would be desirable to at least some user of the sole structure who prefers a low heel offset feel in his/her footwear.
Regarding the third durometer:
In further view of Brandstatter: Brandstatter teaches “A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). Brandstatter further teaches “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34) such that Brandstatter teaches manipulation of hardness of individual components.
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its third material has a third durometer which is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer in order to yield the predictable result of an insole forefoot cushioning element that provides stability while running, as suggested by Brandstatter (para 26) due to its hardness that exceeds the hardness of the underlying forefoot and heel cushioning elements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Peterson, US 5,782,014, newly cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Brown further discloses wherein the outer shell is formed of a fourth material (i.e. a material of the outer shell).
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein the outer shell is formed of a fourth material and defines a receptacle, and wherein the interior cushioning arrangement is at least partially received within the receptacle.
Peteron teaches an outer shell defines a receptacle; an interior cushioning arrangement at least partially received within a receptacle: “cushioning wedge is disposed within a receptacle of an outsole”; col. 1 lines 32-33.
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its outer shell defines a receptacle, and wherein the interior cushioning arrangement is at least partially received within the receptacle in order to yield the predictable result of permitting positioning of the interior cushioning arrangement within the outer shell during assembly.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Aoki, US 2019/0367667, previously cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein the first material is a first foamed elastomer and the second material is a second foamed elastomer.
However, Aoki teaches a foamed elastomer appropriate for use in a sole structure for footwear: “polyurethane elastomer foam is a material for a midsole of shoes”; para 13; “polyurethane elastomer foam is used as a material for an industrial product selected from the group consisting of sole member for shoes such as shoes inner sole, outer sole, and midsole (portion between inner sole and outer sole); shock absorbers including shock absorber for shoes”; para 108. Aoki further teaches the foamed elastomer have “an Asker C hardness (JIS K7312-7: 1996) of, for example, 30 or more...and for example, 60 or less” (para 105). Aoki further teaches “decrease in compression set and improvement in flex cracking of the polyurethane elastomer foam can be both achieved” (para 81).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its first material is a first foamed elastomer and the second material is a second foamed elastomer in order to afford low compression set and/or flex cracking resistance to the shoe sole as taught by Aoki (para 81).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Sanderson, US 960,202], [Dorgin, US 2,451,929], [Peter, CH-233542-A], [Fein, US 2,088,902], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Byrne, US 2013/0081305, provided on the IDS of 01/10/2025].
Regarding claim 10:
Brown in view of Sanderson, Dorgin, Peter, Fein, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein the first end includes a first beveled surface and the second end includes a second beveled surface, the first beveled surface mating with the second beveled surface.
Byrne teaches a sole structure wherein a first end includes a first beveled surface and the second end includes a second beveled surface, the first beveled surface mating with the second beveled surface (Figs. 5-6; para 15; paras 46-47).
Byrne further teaches the mating beveled surfaces are such that the “joint 380 provides the sensation of a smooth footbed surface by blending the transition from the...heel section 374 and the...forefoot section 372¶The area of the...joint is referred to as the transition zone 382...the gradient of the joint between the forefoot section 372 and the heel section 374...provides for a smooth transition between the forefoot section 372 and the heel section 374. In addition, this gradient helps to prevent the forefoot section 372 from shifting in relation to the heel section 374” (paras 46-47).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that the first end includes a first beveled surface and the second end includes a second beveled surface, the first beveled surface mating with the second beveled surface in order to provide a smooth transition between heel and forefoot elements, as taught by Byrne (paras 46-47) and/or to prevent shifting of forefoot element relative to heel element, as also taught by Byrne (paras 46-47)..
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965, newly cited] in view of [Brooks, US 2006/0006079, newly cited], [Ettle, US 1,289,711, cited by Applicant on the IDS of 01/10/2025], and [Evins, US 2,907,058, newly cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Brown discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A sole structure (see elements thereof identified hereinbelow and in annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below; it is noted the sole structure includes a, A, and B as well as a portion of the “boot” of Fig. 1) for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a forefoot element B continuously extending from a first distal end (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) to a first proximal end (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) and extending from a first top surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) to a first bottom surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) and including a first material (“felt or other suitable fibrous material”; p. 1 lines 58-59); a heel element A continuously extending from a second distal end (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) to a second proximal end (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) and extending from a second top surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) to a second bottom surface (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) and including a second material (“leather”; p. 1 line 56); and an outsole (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) including: an outer shell (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below) including a ground-engaging element (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
999
959
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brown does not expressly disclose the interior arrangement A, B is an interior cushioning arrangement.
Brown does not expressly disclose the forefoot element B is a forefoot cushioning element including a first material having a first durometer.
Brown does not expressly disclose the heel element A is a heel cushioning element including a second material having a second durometer.
Brooks teaches an element (L2; para 19) of a sole structure (“insole[]”; para 19) is a cushioning element (“cushioning”; para 19) and includes a material having a durometer (“durometer”; para 19). Brooks further teaches the element L2 comprises “durometer...greater than that of” element L2 of the embodiment of para 17 and further teaches the element of para 19 is “suited for a low-impact activity, such as walking, where...cushioning is required” (para 19) and that the lesser durometer of the embodiment of para 17 is for “cushioning” (para 17) and “For a high-impact activity, such as running or other sport” (para 17).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its heel element is a heel cushioning element, its material having a first durometer and its forefoot element is a forefoot cushioning element, its material having a second durometer, in order to provide foot cushioning whilst engaging in a walking, running, and/or sport activity, as suggested by Brooks (paras 17 and 19).
In adopting the modifications taught by Brooks, the limitation “the interior arrangement A, B is an interior cushioning arrangement” would be met insofar as the arrangement would be a cushioning arrangement due to the cushioning of its constituent elements.
Brown does not expressly disclose the first proximal end including a first beveled engagement surface of the forefoot cushioning element,
the second proximal end including a second beveled engagement surface opposing the first beveled engagement surface of the forefoot cushioning element, wherein the forefoot cushioning element overlaps over the heel cushioning element to form a beveled stepped configuration of the first beveled engagement surface and the second beveled engagement surface, wherein the beveled stepped configuration provides a gradual transition from the first durometer to the second durometer, wherein the first beveled engagement surface includes a first series of concave and convex surfaces extending between the first top surface and the first bottom surface, and wherein the second beveled engagement surface includes a second series of concave and convex surfaces extending between the second top surface and the second bottom surface, whereon the first series and the second series are complementary.
However, Ettle teaches (Figs. 1-4) a sole structure 1, 2 (i.e. the combined 1 and 2) wherein a first proximal end is including a first beveled engagement surface of a forefoot element 1 (p. 1 lines 76-78; Figs. 1-4), a second proximal end including a second beveled engagement surface opposing the first beveled engagement surface of the forefoot element (p. 1 lines 76-78; Figs. 1-4), wherein the forefoot element overlaps over the heel element to form a beveled stepped configuration of the first beveled engagement surface and the second beveled engagement surface (p. 1 lines 76-83; Figs. 1-4), wherein the first beveled engagement surface includes a first series of concave and convex surfaces (p. 1 lines 79-82; Figs. 2-4) extending between a first top surface and the first bottom surface, and wherein the second beveled engagement surface includes a second series of concave and convex surfaces (p. 1 lines 79-82; Figs. 2-4) extending between the second top surface and the second bottom surface, whereon the first series and the second series are complementary (p. 1 lines 79-93; Figs. 1-4).
Ettle further teaches the “joint[]” afforded thereby is such that “two...pieces joined in such a manner that the joint[]” is “of the same thickness as the remaining portions of the sole and of such strength as to remain intact during...manufacturing operations...a sole having a joint of this character...can be made with a minimum mount of expense” (p. 1 lines 42-49).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that the first proximal end including a first beveled engagement surface of the forefoot cushioning element, the second proximal end including a second beveled engagement surface opposing the first beveled engagement surface of the forefoot cushioning element, wherein the forefoot cushioning element overlaps over the heel cushioning element to form a beveled stepped configuration of the first beveled engagement surface and the second beveled engagement surface, wherein the first beveled engagement surface includes a first series of concave and convex surfaces extending between the first top surface and the first bottom surface, and wherein the second beveled engagement surface includes a second series of concave and convex surfaces extending between the second top surface and the second bottom surface, whereon the first series and the second series are complementary, as in Ettle, in order to provide joint strength during manufacture, as suggested by Ettle (p. 1 lines 42-49), to render the sole structure economical, as also suggested by Ettle (p. 1 lines 42-49), and/or to yield joint strength, as suggested by Ettle (p. 1 lines 42-49), for the purpose of providing a strong joint to the sole structure while wearing an article of footwear comprising the sole structure.
In adopting the modification, the limitation “wherein the beveled stepped configuration provides a gradual transition from the first durometer to the second durometer” would be met insofar as the modified sole structure comprises the beveled stepped configuration as explained above joining the first material having the first durometer and the second material having the second durometer and it is the beveled stepped configuration joining the first material and the second material that provides the feature of “provides a gradual transition from the first durometer to the second durometer”,
Brown does not expressly disclose the outer shell including a peripheral wall configured to extend from the ground-engaging element toward an upper of the article of footwear along a perimeter of the outer shell.
Evins teaches a sole structure 14 comprising an outer shell 14 including a peripheral wall 16 configured to extend from a ground-engaging element 24 toward an upper 12 of an article of footwear 10 along a perimeter of the outer shell (col. 1 lines 8-27; Figs. 1 and 3-5).
Evins further teaches the peripheral wall is configured to “overlap the lower edge of the upper, and which is adhesively secured thereto so as to eliminate the necessity of stitching the outsole to the upper” (col. 2 lines 8-10).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its outer shell includes a peripheral wall configured to extend from the ground-engaging element toward an upper of the article of footwear along a perimeter of the outer shell in order to permit adhesive securement of upper and outsole in such a way as to avoid stitching, as taught by Evans (col. 2 lines 8-10) and or to permit overlap between the outer shell and the upper via the peripheral wall of the outer shell for the purpose of securing the outer shell to the upper, as also taught by Evans (col. 2 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 13:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation wherein the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element cooperate to form a first surface having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion formed by the heel cushioning element (Figs. 1 and 3 of Brown wherein it is noted the forefoot/heel elements thereof are modified to be cushioning elements as explained in above treatment of claim 11 such that the surfaces shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are of cushioning elements).
Regarding claim 14:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 13, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation further comprising a plate a (i.e. a of Brown) disposed adjacent to the first surface (Figs. 1 and 3 of Brown wherein it is noted the forefoot/heel elements thereof are modified to be cushioning elements as explained in above treatment of claim 11 such that the surfaces shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are of cushioning elements; it is further noted the term “adjacent” means “Close to; lying near”; adjacent. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 23 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjacent).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Brooks, US 2006/0006079], [Ettle, US 1,289,711], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of [Hopkins, US 2017/0303633, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 01/10/2025].
Regarding claim 12:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein second durometer is less than the first durometer.
However, Hopkins teaches, and in relation to a sole structure (Abstract; Title) for footwear (para 3) that “A firmer heel and softer forefoot could allow a forefoot to compress a sole structure more in the forefoot region, creating a higher heel offset feel. A softer heel and a firmer forefoot could have the opposite effect and create a lower heel offset feel” (para 68).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that the second durometer is less than the first durometer in order to yield a sole structure that affords a lower heel offset feel, as suggested by Hopkins (para 68), wherein said heel offset feel would be desirable to at least some user of the sole structure who prefers a low heel offset feel in his/her footwear.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Brooks, US 2006/0006079], [Ettle, US 1,289,711], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Although Brown discloses a plate a (see above 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 14), the plate a fails to meet the further limitations of both claim 14 and also claim 15; i.e. the plate a of Brown is not disposed adjacent to a first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement having a first portion formed by the forefoot cushioning element and a second portion formed by the heel cushioning element and also disposed within a socket formed in the first surface of the interior cushioning arrangement.
However, Luethi teaches a plate 17 disposed adjacent a first surface, wherein a forefoot element 12 and a heel element 14 cooperate to form the first surface (Figs. 2-6).
In Luethi, the plate 17 is disposed within a socket (the socket within which the plate is provided; Figs. 2 and 4-5) formed in the first surface (Figs. 2 and 4-5)
Luethi further teaches the plate 17 is a “metatarsal support...provided in the metatarsal region above” the forefoot element and the heel element (para 39).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that it is provided with yet another plate disposed adjacent to the first surface; further wherein said yet another the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface in order to provide metatarsal support for a wearer by said yet another plate, as suggested by Luethi (para 39).
Regarding claim 15:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins and Luethi teaches The sole structure of claim 14, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation wherein the plate is disposed within a socket formed in the first surface (see above treatment of claim 14 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Brooks, US 2006/0006079], [Ettle, US 1,289,711], [Evins, US 2,907,058] and [Luethi, DE-102007024427-A1] as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of [Brandstatter, US 2013/0000146, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, Evins, and Luethi teach The sole structure of claim 14, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose further comprising an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element, and including a third material having a third durometer.
Brandstatter teaches providing a sole structure with an insole upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of a plate 16 than a forefoot cushioning element 17 and a heel cushion 18 (18 is “cushioning” (para 26), and 17 has a hardness (para 17; para 34) such that it is configured to cushion). A “midsole 16 is disposed beneath the insole 15 in the shoe” and a “torsion stabilizer 17 and the heel wedge 18 (heel cushioning) are disposed beneath the” insole 15 (para 30, Fig. 1). “The hardness and flexibility of the shoe can be adjusted at least in part via the insole 15, and in this manner, can define the field of use of the shoe. For this a strobel lasted embodiment having a comparably soft (textile) insole can provide a high degree of flexibility...A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that it is provided with an insole that is an upper cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the plate than the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element, and including a third material having a third durometer in order to yield a sole structure wherein the insole upper cushioning element is capable of affording hardness and/or flexibility to the sole structure by virtue of the properties of the insole upper cushioning element, as taught by Brandstatter.
Regarding claim 17:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, Evins, Luethi, and Brandstatter teach The sole structure of claim 16, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 16, the modified Brown does not meet the limitation wherein the third durometer is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer.
However and in further view of Brandstatter: Brandstatter teaches “A hard insole improves stability when running” (para 26). Brandstatter further teaches “all of the components can be adapted individually in terms of hardness, material composition and shape, and as a result can be adapted to different demands and functions” (para 34) such that Brandstatter teaches manipulation of hardness of individual components.
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its third durometer is greater than the first durometer and the second durometer in order to yield the predictable result of an insole forefoot cushioning element that provides stability while running, as suggested by Brandstatter (para 26) due to its hardness that exceeds the hardness of the underlying forefoot and heel cushioning elements.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Brooks, US 2006/0006079], [Ettle, US 1,289,711], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of [Peterson, US 5,782,014, newly cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Brown further discloses wherein the outer shell is formed of a fourth material (i.e. a material of the outer shell).
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein the outer shell is formed of a fourth material and defines a receptacle, the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element at least partially received within the receptacle.
Peterson teaches an outer shell defines a receptacle; an interior cushioning arrangement at least partially received within a receptacle: “cushioning wedge is disposed within a receptacle of an outsole”; col. 1 lines 32-33.
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its outer shell defines a receptacle, and wherein the forefoot cushioning element and the heel cushioning element at least partially received within the receptacle in order to yield the predictable result of permitting positioning of the forefoot cushioning element and heel cushioning element within the outer shell during assembly.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Brooks, US 2006/0006079], [Ettle, US 1,289,711], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of [Aoki, US 2019/0367667, previously cited].
Regarding claim 19:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
Brown does not expressly disclose wherein the first material is a first foamed elastomer and the second material is a second foamed elastomer.
However, Aoki teaches a foamed elastomer appropriate for use in a sole structure for footwear: “polyurethane elastomer foam is a material for a midsole of shoes”; para 13; “polyurethane elastomer foam is used as a material for an industrial product selected from the group consisting of sole member for shoes such as shoes inner sole, outer sole, and midsole (portion between inner sole and outer sole); shock absorbers including shock absorber for shoes”; para 108. Aoki further teaches the foamed elastomer have “an Asker C hardness (JIS K7312-7: 1996) of, for example, 30 or more...and for example, 60 or less” (para 105). Aoki further teaches “decrease in compression set and improvement in flex cracking of the polyurethane elastomer foam can be both achieved” (para 81).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that its first material is a first foamed elastomer and the second material is a second foamed elastomer in order to afford low compression set and/or flex cracking resistance to the shoe sole as taught by Aoki (para 81).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Brown, US 266,965], [Brooks, US 2006/0006079], [Ettle, US 1,289,711], and [Evins, US 2,907,058] as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of [Peter, CH-233542-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 20:
Brown in view of Brooks, Ettle, and Evins teaches The sole structure of claim 11, as set forth above.
The modified Brown further meets the limitation wherein the first beveled engagement surface includes a first plurality of engagement features (i.e. the “projecting portions or fingers from” the “material extended in” a “direction from the joint, so that the said felt extensions will underlie the leather” of heel element A; p. 1 lines 66-70; it is noted the engagement features are not shown in Figs. 1-3).
Brown does not expressly disclose and the second beveled engagement surface includes a second plurality of engagement features configured to mate with the first plurality of engagement features.
In further view of Brown:
Brown describes the engagement features as “projecting portions or fingers from” the “material extended in” a “direction from the joint, so that the said felt extensions will underlie the leather” of heel element A (p. 1 lines 66-70).
Brown does not describe the engagement features as configured to mate with engagement features of the heel element. Nevertheless, the engagement features could “underlie” the heel element in such a way as to be interfacing with engagement features of the heel element; however, Brown is silent as to whether this is the case or not.
Peter teaches a sole structure (title) wherein (Figs. 1 and 3) an engagement feature e (i.e. one of “tabs e”; p. 3 line 20) of an engagement surface of first sole element 1 is configured to mate with (“engage in one another in the manner of tongue and groove”; p. 3 lines 20-21) an engagement feature d of an engagement surface of a second sole element 2.
Peter further teaches the “sole parts...are overlapped at their contact points and” secured to each other “to form a cohesive board” (p. 3 line 19).
It 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 to have modified the modified Brown such that it the second beveled engagement surface includes a second plurality of engagement features configured to mate with the first plurality of engagement features in order to help form a cohesive sole structure, as suggested by Peter (p. 3 line 19), and/or to yield the predictable result(s) of: aiding in proper positioning of heel element relative to forefoot element during sole structure via the capability of mutual mating of the of engagement features.
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights