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 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, and 27-30 are presented.
Claims 1, 7-9, 15, 17, 21, 23-24, and 30 are amended.
Claims 16, 19, 22, and 26 are canceled.
The present Office action treats claims 1-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, and 27-30 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 03/16/2026 (see p. 10-17 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (p. 10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s amendment to claim 30 has overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection applied in the previous Office action.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 10-17): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1, claim 2 and the other “dependent claims” that depend from claim 1 (see p. 11-15) 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 15 and the other “dependent claims” that depend from claim 15 (see p. 11-13 and 16) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues claim 15 has “been amended” to “recite additional distinguishable features over the cited reference” (p. 11) and “recite a combination of elements that are distinguishable and allowed over the cited references (p. 13) and argues, specifically (p. 16):
Claim 15, recites in part "...wherein the hotmelt adhesive comprises a second thermoplastic composition, which is different from the first thermoplastic composition, and wherein the sole structure is substantially free of the second thermoplastic composition." The Office has cited the combination of Moretti as teaching hotmelts, Auyang as teaching the strobel and Baghdadi as teaching sole materials. However, none of the references teaches or suggest bonding a strobel to the inner-facing surface of a bonding skirt. Auyang stitches a bladder strobel to the upper flange and Moretti bonds membranes to structural inserts. None of the references teaches using a hotmelt adhesive at the strobel/bonding-skirt interface. Auyang uses mechanical stitching and Moretti uses hotmelt films for waterproof sealing, not for attaching a strobel. The amended independent claim 15 now recites the hotmelt adhesive comprises a second thermoplastic composition, which is different from the first thermoplastic composition, which now imposes a material-differentiation requirement not described in any of the references. Finally, amended independent claim 15 now recites the sole structure is substantially free of the second thermoplastic composition, which is a structural and material purity limitation. None of the cited references provides a reason or motivation to use two thermoplastic compositions while ensuring one is excluded from the sole. This feature produces benefits not described in the cited references, for example preventing adhesive contamination of the sole during direct-injection molding among others.
Examiner’s reply to the arguments directed to claim 15 and claims dependent thereon:
These arguments are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s general arguments on p. 11 and p. 13 are not persuasive because they amount to 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.
Applicant’s specific arguments on p. 16 are fully considered and are not persuasive:
Applicant’s argument that “None of the references teaches using a hotmelt adhesive at the strobel/bonding-skirt interface. Auyang uses mechanical stitching and Moretti uses hotmelt films for waterproof sealing, not for attaching a strobel” is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with claim language and is not commensurate with the rejection as applied in the previous Office action. No claim previously examined or presented for examination recites an “interface”. To the extent, if any, Applicant’s arguments are directed to “the bonding skirt comprising an inner-facing surface...and a strobel bonded, via a hotmelt adhesive, to the inner-facing surface”, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive insofar as this is a limitation that is taught by the prior art, as stated in the Office’s rejection of claim 15 in the previous office action (see 17-19 of the Office action of 12/16/2026), and the argument does not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant’s specific argument directed to prior art [Auyang, US 2019/0365040] is fully considered but is not persuasive because Auyang was not relied upon in the rejection to address any argued “mechanical stitching”. Rather, Auyang teaches a sole structure that is thermally bonded to a strobel and an upper (refer to the Office action of 12/16/2025, p. 19 lines 11-12 and in reference to Auyang para 92), which is a teaching provided within Auyang whether or any other teaching(s) of Auyang is/are directed to any argued “mechanical stitching”. Applicant’s specific argument directed to prior art [Moretti, US 2012/0151806] is fully considered but is not persuasive in that Moretti meets the limitation “a strobel bonded, via a hotmelt adhesive, to the inner-facing surface” of a bonding skirt, as set forth in the previous Office action (see p. 17-18 of the Office action of 12/16/2026). Applicant’s argument that “Moretti uses hotmelt films for waterproof sealing, not for attaching a strobel” is fully considered and is not persuasive in that strobel 14 of Moretti is bonded, via the hotmelt adhesive 21 of Moretti, to the inner-facing surface of the bonding skirt 16a of the upper 16 of Moretti, as stated in the Office action of 12/16/2025; see the final two lines of p. 17 thereof and the annotated figure on p. 18 thereof and in reference to the bonding described in para 183 of Moretti. That Moretti is argued to teach the use of “hotmelt films for waterproof sealing” is therefore not a persuasive argument as to why Moretti fails to meet the limitation as claimed.
Applicant’s specific argument that “amended independent claim 15 now recites the hotmelt adhesive comprises a second thermoplastic composition, which is different from the first thermoplastic composition, which now imposes a material-differentiation requirement not described in any of the references” is fully considered and is not persuasive in that this is a limitation that is taught by the cited prior art; refer to the Office’s rejection of claim 16 on p. 19-20 of the Office action of 12/16/2025). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because does the argument specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s specific argument that “amended independent claim 15 now recites the sole structure is substantially free of the second thermoplastic composition, which is a structural and material purity limitation. None of the cited references provides a reason or motivation to use two thermoplastic compositions while ensuring one is excluded from the sole” is fully considered and is not persuasive in that the argued limitation of “the sole structure is substantially free of the second thermoplastic composition” is taught by the cited prior art (see the rejection of claim 19 on p. 21 of the Office action of 12/16/2025). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because does the argument specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s specific argument directed to “benefits not described in the cited references” is fully considered and is not persuasive. The cited prior art meets the claim limitations as set forth in the rejections of claims 15, 16, and 19 on p. 17-21 of the Office action of 12/16/2025). And in response to applicant's argument that “This feature provides benefits not described in the cited references”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 21 and the other “dependent claims” that depend from claim 21 (see p. 11-13 and 16-17) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues claim 21 has “been amended” to “recite additional distinguishable features over the cited reference” (p. 11) and “recite a combination of elements that are distinguishable and allowed over the cited references (p. 13) and argues, specifically (p. 16-17):
The Office has cited Meschter and Auyang as teaching the elements of claim 21. Meschter relates to laser-etching stratified materials to expose underlying layers, changing surface aesthetics or functional properties (color, stretch resistance, permeability) by removing material from selected layers of the upper. Auyang teaches strobel constructions using polymeric bladders with flanges and methods of stitching them to the upper. However, none of the references teaches the elements of amended claim 21. Meschter does not describe zones defined by relief depth, it uses incisions that remove material but does not teach controlled surface relief depth grading across the upper. Meschter's laser incisions are local patterning operations, not region-based transitions defined by width. The concept of a "zone" whose dimension changes as a function of position around the shoe upper is absent. Auyang cannot cure the deficiencies in Meschter, as Auyang is silent on upper construction other than stitching interface behavior.
Examiner’s reply to the arguments directed to claim 21 and claims dependent thereon:
These arguments are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s general arguments on p. 11 and p. 13 are not persuasive because they amount to 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.
Applicant’s specific arguments on p. 16-17 are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the subject matter of amended claim 21, which is similar in scope—but broader than—claim 26 as claim 26 was previously presented and examined in the Office action of 12/16/2025. Prior art [Meschter, US 2004/0261295] in view of [Auyang, US 2019/0365040] was relied upon in the rejection of claim 26 in the Office action of 12/16/2025, and accordingly Applicant’s argument that “none of the references teaches the elements of amended claim 21” is fully considered but is not persuasive insofar as Meschter in view of Auyang, in teaching the narrower claim 26 as previously presented, teach also the broader amended claim 21, as presented in the rejections below. Applicant’s specific argument that “Meschter does not describe zones defined by relief depth, it uses incisions that remove material but does not teach controlled surface relief depth grading across the upper. Meschter's laser incisions are local patterning operations, not region-based transitions defined by width. The concept of a "zone" whose dimension changes as a function of position around the shoe upper is absent” is fully considered and is not persuasive in that Meschter teaches the argued claimed zones and widths as set forth in the rejection of claim 26 as previously presented and those claims from which claim 26 depends as previously presented (i.e. independent claim 21 as previously presented and intervening claims 22, 24, and 25 as previously presented); see p. 24-27 and 29-33 of the Office action of 12/16/2025. Applicant’s specific argument that Meschter “does not describe zones” as argued is fully considered and is not persuasive. Meschter does not use the term “zone” however, Meschter comprises the zones as set forth in the rejections on p. 24-27 and 29-33 of the Office action of 12/16/2025. As provided for in MPEP 2111.01, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with and in light of the specification and the BRI doesn't mean the broadest possible interpretation. The meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. In the present case, a first zone is described as overlapping with a sole structure and a second zone is described as not overlapping with the sole structure (para 17 as filed), the second zone having deeper relief features as compared to the first zone (para 17 as filed) further wherein a transition zone is positioned between the first zone and second zone and can extend from a biteline to the second zone (para 19 as filed); Fig. 1 as filed shows first zone 122a overlapping with a sole structure, second zone 122c not overlapping with the sole structure, and transition zone 122b positioned therebetween and extending from a biteline to the second zone. In like manner, the first, second, and transition zones of Meschter (see p. 24-25 of the Office action of 12/16/2025) are arranged such that first zone is overlapping a sole structure, second zone is not overlapping with the sole structure, and the transition zone is positioned therebetween and extending from a biteline to the second zone such that Meschter discloses zones consistent with the use of the terms in the specification and drawings. In addition, the term “zone” means “an area that differs in some respect, or is distinguished for some purpose, from adjoining areas, or within which distinctive circumstances exist or are established” (zone. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved May 7 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/zone) such that the first, second, and transition zones of Meschter (see p. 24-25 of the Office action of 12/16/2025) are zones consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term zone in that each is an area that differs from its adjoining zone in some respect: the first zone being overlapping the sole structure as opposed to the transition zone; the second zone and the transition zone differing from each other in that within each zone relief depths are different (refer to annotated Fig. 2 – a presented on p. 25 of the Office action of 12/16/2025) and moreover different elements of the upper are exposed on the outermost surface, with elements 41 and 43 being exposed in the transition zone (refer to annotated Fig. 2 – a presented on p. 25 of the Office action of 12/16/2025) and elements 41 and 42 being exposed in the second zone (refer to annotated Fig. 2 – a presented on p. 25 of the Office action of 12/16/2025). Applicant’s specific arguments directed to the argued relative widths of the first width and the second width (i.e. the argument that the “concept of a "zone" whose dimension changes as a function of position around the shoe upper is absent”) is fully considered and is not persuasive in that the limitation of relative first and second widths as claimed in amended claim 21 is taught by the prior art, as presented in the rejection of the narrower claim 26 as previously presented and those claims that claim 26 was dependent upon as previously presented (see p. 24-27 and 29-33 of the Office action of 12/16/2025). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive in that it does not point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 21 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 1: “a biteline” should be --the biteline--
Claim 21 line 16: “the second width” should be --a second width--
Claim 24 line 2: “a first width at a first position around a periphery” should be --the first width at the first position around the periphery--
Claim 24 line 3: “a second width” should be --the second width--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 does not further limit claim 1 in that claim 1 introduces a biteline (see claim 1 line 4) such that the phrase “The footwear article of claim 1 further comprising, a biteline” in claim 6 is not further limiting of claim 1.
Claims 7-14 are rejected if only because they depend from a rejected claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Farr, US 2021/0015210; cited by Applicant on the IDS of 06/04/2025 and hereinafter Farr ‘5210] in view of [Farr, US 2019/0343220; cited by Applicant on the IDS of 06/04/2025 and hereinafter Farr ‘3220].
Regarding claim 1:
Farr ‘5210 discloses (Figs. 6A-6C):
A footwear article 610 (i.e. “footwear 610”; para 310) comprising:
a sole structure 613 (i.e. “sole structure 613”; para 310) comprising a first thermoplastic composition (“polyolefin resin” (para 318) including “any of the polyolefin resin compositions described herein” (para 318); “Thermoplastic Polyolefins” (paras 484-495));
an upper 612, 680 (i.e. the combined “upper 612” and “rand 680”; para 310) comprising a first zone (see annotated Fig. 6B – a below), a second zone (see annotated Fig. 6B – a below) and a transition zone (see annotated Fig. 6B – a below) positioned between a biteline 670 (i.e. “biteline 670”; para 310) and the second zone (as in annotated Fig. 6B – a below);
the first zone overlapping with the sole structure (as in annotated Fig. 6B – a below) and thermally bonded to the sole structure (and specifically to surface 640 thereof “by melding the polymeric resin of the upper 612...with” element 614 of the sole structure, wherein it is noted that the two are thermally bonded as claimed consistent with Applicant’s description that a thermal bond comprises “material from a first component...mix with...material from the second component” (para [0036] as filed));
the second zone comprising a first portion of an outermost surface of the footwear article (see annotated Fig. 6B – a below); and
the first portion of the outermost surface comprising a surface chemical composition (of 612);
wherein the transition zone comprises a second chemical composition (the “polyolefin resin” (para 33) of 680).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Farr ‘5210 does not expressly disclose the first portion of the outermost surface comprising a surface chemical composition (of 612) that is different from the first thermoplastic composition.
Farr ‘5210 does not expressly disclose wherein the transition zone comprises a second chemical composition that is different from the surface chemical composition of the first portion of the outermost surface.
However and in further view of Farr ‘5210:
In Farr ‘5210, element 612 of the upper forms the first portion of an outermost surface of the footwear article (refer to annotated Fig. 6B – a above). Farr states that element 612 comprises a “polymeric resin” (para 311) and is silent as to what this resin is and whether its surface chemical composition is different from either the first thermoplastic composition (i.e. the “polyolefin resin” of the sole structure) second chemical composition (i.e. “polyolefin resin” of rand 680 of upper).
In further view of Farr ‘5210:
Farr ‘5210 teaches a “rand polymeric material can comprise a resin composition that is the same or different from the first polyolefin resin composition” of a sole structure (para 359). And in regards to plural discrete components of a sole structure 8100: Farr teaches “edge portion 860” thereof “includes a second resin that is different from the first polyolefin resin” of the plate portion 800 thereof. “Alternatively, the second resin composition can include any other resin composition as described herein. In general, the second resin can be any resin that is compatible with the first polyolefin resin and that has the necessary or desired durability and mechanical properties” (para 319).
Although Farr ‘5210 is silent as to the precise composition of element 612, one or ordinary skill would have expected from the combined teachings of paras 319 and 359 of Farr ‘5210 that it is possible to use different resin compositions in the construction of the article of footwear and, furthermore, would have recognized that there is a finite number (i.e. two) of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success of how to provide element 612 of the upper; viz: :
providing element 612 with a surface chemical composition that is exactly the same as one or both of the sole structure or the rand
providing element 612 with a surface chemical composition that is different from that of the sole structure and the rand
However, Farr ‘3220 teaches a footwear (Abstract) comprising an upper 112 and a sole structure wherein 113 wherein “the upper is formed of a different polymeric resin than the plate” (para 45).
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 footwear article of Farr ‘5210 such that element 612 of its upper is formed of a different polymeric resin than that of the sole structure and the rand, thereby yielding the first portion of the outermost surface comprising a surface chemical composition is different from the first thermoplastic composition; wherein the transition zone comprises a second chemical composition that is different from the surface chemical composition of the first portion of the outermost surface, in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear wherein the polymeric resin of element 612 thereof provides durability and/or mechanical properties that are appropriate for the second zone relative to the durability and/or mechanical properties of the first and transition zones due to the characteristics of the polymeric resin of element 612 relative to that of the first and transition zones.
and/or
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 footwear article of Farr ‘5210 such that element 612 of its upper is formed of a different polymeric resin than that of the sole structure and the rand, thereby yielding the first portion of the outermost surface comprising a surface chemical composition is different from the first thermoplastic composition; wherein the transition zone comprises a second chemical composition that is different from the surface chemical composition of the first portion of the outermost surface, in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear that is appropriate for covering a foot of a wearer and use by the wearer. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decisions as to which material(s) to select for the construction of element 612 and would have recognized that forming element 612 of a different polymeric resin than that of the sole structure and the rand would have a reasonable expectation of success of achieving an article of footwear that is appropriate for covering a foot of a wearer and use by the wearer.
Regarding claim 2:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 1, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses wherein the first thermoplastic composition comprises a polyolefin resin composition (“polyolefin resin” (para 318) including “any of the polyolefin resin compositions described herein” (para 318); “Thermoplastic Polyolefins” (paras 484-495)).
Regarding claim 3:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 2, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses wherein the surface chemical composition comprises less than 5% of the polyolefin resin composition (the polyolefin resin composition is a feature of sole structure 613 and the surface chemical composition is of element 612 which is a discrete element from sole structure 613 such that the surface chemical composition comprises less than 5% of the polyolefin resin composition.)
Regarding claim 6:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 1, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses further comprising, a biteline 670.
Regarding claim 7:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 6, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses wherein the transition zone comprises a second portion of the outermost surface of the footwear article (see annotated Fig. 6B – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
766
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 7, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses wherein the second portion of the outermost surface of the footwear article comprises the second chemical composition (i.e. the “polyolefin resin” (para 33) of 680) insofar as 680 forms the second portion of the outermost surface; refer to annotated Fig. 6B – b presented in above addressing of claim 7).
Regarding claim 9:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 8, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses wherein the first thermoplastic composition (i.e. the “polyolefin resin” (para 318) including “any of the polyolefin resin compositions described herein” (para 318); “Thermoplastic Polyolefins” (paras 484-495)) and the second chemical composition (the “polyolefin resin” (para 33) of 680) comprise a polyolefin resin composition (paras 318 and 33, respectively).
Regarding claim 10:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 9, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses wherein the transition zone comprises a width (i.e. the “height...measured from the biteline to an upper edge of the rand” (para 33) extending from the biteline to the second zone (para 33).
Farr ‘5210 does not expressly disclose wherein the width is in a range of about 3 mm to about 7 mm.
Farr ‘5210 teaches a broader range : “from about 1 millimeter to about 25 millimeters” (para 33). However, attention is drawn to MPEP 2144.05 which states in relevant part “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Farr ‘5210 teaches the width “can be configured to provide necessary or desirable properties to targeted regions the article of footwear...for example, improved water resistance or improved abrasion resistance” (para 302).
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 Farr ‘5210 such that its width is in a range of about 3 mm to about 7 mm in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear wherein improved water resistance and/or abrasion resistance are afforded about 3 mm to about 7 mm above the biteline due to the presence of the rand 680 thereat.
Regarding claim 11:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 10, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 as embodied in Figs. 6A-6B does not expressly disclose wherein the width comprises a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article, wherein the transition zone comprises a second width extending from the biteline to the second zone and at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article, and wherein the second width is different from the first width.
However and in further view of Farr ‘5210:
Farr ‘5210 as embodied in para 306 teaches a width comprises a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article, wherein the transition zone comprises a second width extending from the biteline to the second zone and at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article, and wherein the second width is different from the first width: the width “varies about the perimeter of the article of footwear 310. For example, the rand 380 may have a greater height”, resulting in a greater width, “in the forefoot portion or in the heel portion, or both, of the article of footwear 310, as necessary or desired” (para 306).
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 Farr ‘5210 such that the width comprises a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article, wherein the transition zone comprises a second width extending from the biteline to the second zone and at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article, and wherein the second width is different from the first width in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear wherein improved water resistance and/or abrasion resistance are afforded at different widths above the biteline due to the presence of the variable-height rand 680 thereat.
Regarding claim 12:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 11, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 as embodied in Figs. 6A-6B does not expressly disclose wherein the first position is in a forefoot region of the footwear article and the second position is in a midfoot region of the footwear article.
However and in further view of Farr ‘5210:
Farr ‘5210 as embodied in para 306 teaches a width comprises a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article, wherein the transition zone comprises a second width extending from the biteline to the second zone and at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article, and wherein the second width is different from the first width: the width “varies about the perimeter of the article of footwear 310. For example, the rand 380 may have a greater height”, resulting in a greater width, “in the forefoot portion or in the heel portion, or both, of the article of footwear 310, as necessary or desired” (para 306).
And Farr ‘5210 teaches (Figs. 2A-2B) a first width in a forefoot region different from a second width in a midfoot region wherein the first width is smaller than the second width (see annotated Fig. 2A – c below).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Farr ‘5210 such that the first position is in a forefoot region of the footwear article and the second position is in a midfoot region of the footwear article and such that the first width is smaller than the second width in order to provide improved water resistance and/or improved abrasion resistance at in the midfoot region.
Regarding claim 13:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 12, as set forth above.
The modified Farr ‘5210 further meets the limitation wherein the first width is smaller than the second width (see above treatment of claim 12 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Farr, US 2021/0015210] and [Farr, US 2019/0343220] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Brandt, US 2022/0134703, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 4:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 3, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 does not expressly disclose wherein the surface chemical composition comprises a polyurethane composition.
However, Brandt teaches a footwear upper wherein a surface chemical composition comprises a polyurethane composition and wherein a portion of an outermost surface comprises a polyurethane ink: “Articles of apparel...include...articles of footwear such as uppers for shoes, and the like” (para 45) wherein a portion of an outermost surface comprises a polyurethane ink: ““printing technique”...refers to...applying a colored substance to a substrate (e.g., an interior layer...and includes any printing process, technique, or method known by those skilled in the art. Generally, the colored substance may be a colorant, a sublimation dye, or both, and the colorant and the sublimation dye may be configured to have a color...printing techniques contemplated herein include direct printing techniques in which one or more colorants are transferred to a substrate...“colorant”...refers to any ink, pigment, dye, or other substance that colors something and may include a wide range of inks...the colorant may include commercially available inks that are known by those having ordinary skill in the art or proprietary inks to be used with digital printing techniques. Such inks may be water-based or oil-based and may include, but are not limited to...polyurethane ink” (para 59) further wherein “color properties may impart a desirable aesthetic to an apparel item” (para 36).
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 Farr ‘5210 such that the surface chemical composition comprises a polyurethane composition and wherein a portion of an outermost surface comprises a polyurethane ink in order to provide a desirable aesthetic to the upper in the second zone on the surface thereof and to the first portion of the outermost surface via the color of the polyurethane composition and polyurethane ink, as suggested by Brandt (para 36).
Regarding claim 5:
Farr ‘5210, Farr ‘3220, and Brandt teach The footwear article of claim 4, as set forth above.
The modified Farr ‘5210 further meets the limitation wherein the first portion of the outermost surface comprises a polyurethane ink (see above treatment of claim 4 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Farr, US 2021/0015210] and [Farr, US 2019/0343220] as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of [Follet, US 2017/0071291, newly cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Farr ‘5210 in view of Farr ‘3220 teach The footwear article of claim 7, as set forth above.
Farr ‘5210 further discloses the second portion of the outermost surface comprises a surface texture (para 524).
Farr ‘5210 does not expressly disclose wherein the first portion of the outermost surface comprises a surface texture that, as compared to the second portion of the outermost surface, comprises larger relief depth.
Farr ‘5210 is silent as to whether the first portion of the outermost surface comprises any surface texture.
Follet teaches an article of footwear (Abstract, title) wherein plural zones of an upper are provided with a surface texture (para 220; Fig. 32). Follet further teaches relief depth of a surface texture varies such that “recess structures 152 that are more centrally located within textured area 151 can be the deepest, and the recess structures 152 can be gradually shallower the closer those recess structures 152 are to the smooth area 140. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 5, the first recess structure 168 can have the greatest depth 178 relative to the second and third recess structures 170, 172. The second recess structure 170 can have a slightly smaller depth 190, and the third recess structure 172 can have the shallowest depth 192” (para 93; Fig. 3). Follet further teaches “textured area 150 can deform and flatten out when textured area 150 impacts a ball or other object. Then, textured area 150 can resiliently recover back to the more textured state. Accordingly, this resilient deformation can dampen and dissipate the impact energy...textured area 150 can provide padding and/or cushioning” (para 73).
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 Farr ‘5210 such that the first portion of the outermost surface is comprises a surface texture in order to permit impact dissipation and/or to afford padding and/or cushioning in the second zone, as suggested by Follet (para 73).
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 Follet such that the surface texture, as compared to the second portion of the outermost surface, comprises larger relief depth, in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear that is configured permit impact dissipation and/or to afford padding and/or cushioning in the second zone to a greater degree than in the transition zone.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Moretti, US 2012/0151806, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025] in view of [Baghdadi, US 2019/0276626, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025] and [Auyang, US 2019/0365040, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 15:
Moretti discloses (Fig. 8):
A footwear article (“shoe”; para 65; no specific numeral therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) comprising:
a sole structure 12;
an upper 16 comprising a bonding skirt 16a that overlaps with the sole structure (Fig. 8);
the bonding skirt comprising an inner-facing surface (see annotated Fig. 8 – a below) that faces towards a foot-receiving cavity A of the footwear article; and
a strobel 14 bonded (para 183; Fig. 8), via a hotmelt (para 183; paras 185-187) adhesive 21, to the inner-facing surface (as in annotated Fig. 8 – a below);
wherein the hotmelt adhesive comprises a second thermoplastic composition (“thermoplastic hot-melt adhesive made for example of polyurethane, polyester, polyamide or polyolefins”; para 127), wherein the sole structure is substantially free of the second thermoplastic composition (the second thermoplastic composition is of the hotmelt adhesive, which is separate from the sole structure; accordingly, the sole structure is substantially free of the second thermoplastic composition in that the sole structure and hotmelt adhesive are separate elements and each is substantially free of the other).
PNG
media_image4.png
603
807
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Moretti does not expressly disclose the sole structure comprising a first thermoplastic composition.
However, Baghdadi teaches a sole structure (“athletic footwear midsole[]” and/or “athletic footwear []outsole[]) comprising a first thermoplastic composition (“thermoplastic...is particu[l]arly suitable for athletic equipment and apparel, particularly footwear (e.g., athletic footwear midsoles/outsoles)”; para 14. Baghdadi further teaches the thermoplastic composition “exhibits a...balance of properties such as high energy return, high split tear, low density, and low compression set” (para 14) and “demonstrate improved physical properties including one or more of an enhanced energy return, and enhanced split tear, a decreased density, or a combination thereof” (para 27).
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 footwear article of Moretti such that its sole structure is comprising a first thermoplastic composition in order to afford one or more of: improved energy return, improved split tear, low density, and low compression set, as taught by Baghdadi (paras 14, 27).
In adopting the modification above, the limitation “second thermoplastic composition, which is different from the first thermoplastic composition” would be met insofar as the first thermoplastic composition is of the sole structure; sole structure and hotmelt adhesive are discrete components such that the thermoplastic composition of the adhesive is different from the thermoplastic composition of the sole structure.
Moretti does not expressly disclose an upper comprising a bonding skirt that overlaps with the sole structure and that is thermally bonded to the sole structure.
In further view of Moretti: in Moretti, the bonding skirt overlaps with the sole structure in such a way that the bonding skirt and sole structure are contacting each other (see annotated Fig. 8 – a above). Moretti is silent as to any thermal bond between bonding skirt and sole structure.
However, Auyang teaches a sole structure that is thermally bonded to a strobel and an upper (para 92) “to secure the” sole structure “83 to the upper 14” (para 92).
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 Moretti such that its upper comprising a bonding skirt that overlaps with the sole structure and that is thermally bonded to the sole structure in order to secure the sole structure to the upper, as taught by Auyang (para 92).
Regarding claim 17:
Moretti in view of Baghdadi and Auyang teach The footwear article of claim 15, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 15, the modified Moretti does not meet the limitation wherein the first thermoplastic composition comprises a polyolefin resin composition.
However and in further view of Baghdadi:
Baghdadi teaches the thermoplastic composition of a sole structure comprises a polyolefin resin composition (“terpolymers of ethylene, acrylic acid, and methyl acrylate or butyl acrylate”; para 89; it is noted the present disclosure states that “ethylene/alkyl acrylate copolymers” and “ethylene/acrylic acid copolymers” are “Exemplary polyolefin copolymers” (see para [0148] as filed).
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 Moretti such that its first thermoplastic composition comprises a polyolefin resin composition in order to yield the one or more of: improved energy return, improved split tear, low density, and low compression set; one of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which specific thermoplastic composition to adopt, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the polyolefin resin composition taught by Baghdadi would be an acceptable material for the first thermoplastic composition based on the teachings of Baghdadi.
Regarding claim 18:
Moretti in view of Baghdadi and Auyang teach The footwear article of claim 17, as set forth above.
Moretti further discloses wherein the second thermoplastic composition comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane composition (“thermoplastic hot-melt adhesive made...of polyurethane”; para 127).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Moretti, US 2012/0151806], [Baghdadi, US 2019/0276626], and [Auyang, US 2019/0365040] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Luedecke, US 2016/0353836, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025] and [Watanabe, US 4,335,528, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 20:
Moretti in view of Baghdadi and Auyang teach The footwear article of claim 15, as set forth above.
Moretti does not expressly disclose wherein the inner-facing surface comprises a first nonwoven textile comprising first fibers and the strobel comprises a second nonwoven textile comprising second fibers, and wherein portions of the hotmelt adhesive at least partially encapsulates the first fibers and the second fibers.
Luedecke teaches an upper comprises a first nonwoven textile comprising first fibers (“upper 105 can be formed of any one or more materials suitable for its described purpose, including...nonwoven textiles, knit textiles, leather, synthetic leather, rubber, etc.). The specific materials utilized are generally selected to impart wear-resistance, flexibility, air-permeability, moisture control and/or comfort to the user wearing the shoe 100”; para 33) and a strobel comprises a second nonwoven textile comprising second fibers (“strobel member 140 can be constructed of any suitable material...that is configured to effectively secure the upper 105 to the sole structure 110. In example embodiments, the strobel member can be constructed of any one or more materials similar to those utilized to construct the upper 105, including...nonwoven textiles...strobel member 140 can be constructed of the same or different textile material(s) as the upper 105”; para 62).
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 Moretti such that its inner-facing surface comprises a first nonwoven textile comprising first fibers and the strobel comprises a second nonwoven textile comprising second fibers in order to impart wear-resistance, flexibility, air-permeability, moisture control and/or comfort to the shoe, as suggested by Luedecke (paras 33 and 62).
and/or
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 Moretti such that its inner-facing surface comprises a first nonwoven textile comprising first fibers and the strobel comprises a second nonwoven textile comprising second fibers in order to yield the predictable result of a footwear article whose upper and strobel whose materials of construction are appropriate for surrounding a foot of a wearer; one of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which material(s) to have selected for the purpose of providing the upper and strobel and would have recognized that providing said upper and strobel such that the inner-facing surface comprises a first nonwoven textile comprising first fibers and the strobel comprises a second nonwoven textile comprising second fibers would be acceptable materials for surrounding a foot of a wearer based on the teachings of Luedecke.
Regarding portions of the hotmelt adhesive at least partially encapsulates the first fibers and the second fibers:
Watanabe teaches portions of a hotmelt adhesive at least partially encapsulate fibers: “When the film 5 of hot-melt adhesive is interposed between the plastic sole 3 and the insert material 2 according to this embodiment of the present invention, the hot-melt adhesive penetrates into the interstices between the fibers of the...insert because of the heat and pressure applied during the injection molding step, and an effect of increasing the bonding strength can be attained”; col. 3 lines 53-60.
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 Moretti such that portions of the hotmelt adhesive at least partially encapsulates the first fibers and the second fibers in order to increase the bonding strength between the hotmelt adhesive and the first fibers and in order to increase the bonding strength between the hotmelt adhesive and the second fibers, as suggested by Watanabe (col. 3 lines 53-60).
Claim(s) 21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Meschter, US 2004/0261295, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025] in view of [Auyang, US 2019/0365040; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 21:
Meschter discloses (Figs. 1-7):
A footwear article 10 comprising:
a sole structure 20;
an upper 40 comprising a first zone (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below), a second zone (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below), and a transition zone (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) between the first zone and the second zone;
the first zone overlapping with the sole structure at a biteline (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below); the transition zone extending from the biteline to the second zone (as in annotated Fig. 2 – a below); the transition zone comprising a first portion of an outermost surface of the footwear article (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below), wherein the transition zone comprises a first surface texture that comprises a first relief depth (the depth of 44d; refer to annotated Fig. 2 – a below showing 44d and transition zone); and the second zone comprising a second portion of the outermost surface of the footwear article (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below), wherein the second zone comprises a second surface texture that comprises a second relief depth (the depth of 44c; refer to annotated Fig. 2 – a below showing 44c and second zone);
wherein the transition zone comprises one or more widths (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) extending from the biteline to the second zone.
PNG
media_image5.png
547
1096
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
547
1089
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Meschter does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more widths comprise a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article and a second width, and wherein the second width is different from the first width and wherein the first width is smaller than the second width.
However and in further view of Meschter:
Meschter further teaches that a region of the upper that displays the red color of third layer 43 spans along a side of the upper in such a way that one or more widths of said region of the upper that displays the red color of third layer 43 comprises a first width (see annotated Fig. 1 – c below) from the biteline at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article and a second width (see annotated Fig. 1 – c below) from the biteline at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article, and wherein the second width is different from the first width (as in annotated Fig. 1 – c below) further wherein the region of the upper that displays the red color of third layer 43 spans along a side of the upper in such a way that a first width from the biteline is smaller than a second width from the biteline (see annotated Fig. 1 – c below).
PNG
media_image7.png
697
982
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 article of Meschter such a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article and a second width at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article, and wherein the second width is different from the first width and wherein the first width is smaller than the second width in order to yield the predictable result of exposing a yellow color at the first position and the location of the second width at different widths away from the biteline wherein the first width is smaller than the second width in order to yield a footwear article whose aesthetic presentation of yellow at those respective locations and widths which is desirable to at least some user(s) and/or observer(s) of the article of footwear.
Meschter Figs. 1-7 does not expressly disclose wherein the transition zone comprises a first surface texture that comprises a first relief depth; and the second zone comprising a second portion of the outermost surface of the footwear article, wherein the second zone comprises a second surface texture that comprises a second relief depth, which is larger than the first relief depth.
Rather, in Meschter Figs. 1-7, the second relief depth (of 44c; see annotated Fig. 2 – a presented above) is smaller than the first relief depth (of 44d; see annotated Fig. 2 – a presented above).
However and in further view of Meschter:
The first relief depth is correspondent to an “incision[]...44 c hav[ing] a depth that extends through first layer 41, thereby exposing the yellow color of second layer 42”; and the second relief depth is correspondent to another “incision[] 44 d...hav[ing] a depth that extends through first layer 41 and second layer 42, thereby exposing the red color of third layer 43” (para 26).
Meschter further teaches “various incisions are formed in stratified material 40 to expose underlying layers of stratified material 40. By exposing the underlying layers, the properties of stratified material 40, and thereby the properties of upper 30, may be selectively modified. Accordingly, the incisions formed in stratified material 40 are utilized to selectively vary the properties of stratified material 40 in specific portions of upper 30. Potential properties of stratified material 40 that may be varied...include color...for example” (para 23). Meschter further teaches the “incisions” are “to affect physical or aesthetic properties of the stratified material” (para 2). And Meschter further teaches “The present invention is disclosed above and in the accompanying drawings with reference to a variety of embodiments. The purpose served by the disclosure, however, is to provide an example of the various features and concepts related to the invention, not to limit the scope of the invention. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that numerous variations and modifications may be made to the embodiments described above” (para 59).
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 Meschter such that its second relief depth is larger than the first relief depth in order to yield the predictable result of exposing a red color at the location of the first relief depth and a yellow color at the location of the second relief depth in order to yield a footwear article whose aesthetic presentation of red and yellow at those respective locations which is desirable to at least some user(s) and/or observer(s) of the article of footwear.
Meschter does not expressly disclose the first zone overlapping with the sole structure at a biteline and thermally bonded to the sole structure.
In further view of Meschter: in Meschter, the first zone overlaps with the sole structure in such a way that the first zone and sole structure are contacting each other (see annotated Fig. 2 – a above). Meschter is silent as to any thermal bond between first zone and sole structure.
However, Auyang teaches a sole structure that is thermally bonded to an upper (para 92) “to secure the” sole structure “83 to the upper 14” (para 92).
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 Meschter such that its first zone is overlapping with the sole structure at the biteline and thermally bonded to the sole structure in order to secure the sole structure to the upper, as taught by Auyang (para 92).
Regarding claim 23:
Meschter in view of Auyang teaches The footwear article of claim 21, as set forth above.
Meschter does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more widths are in a range of about 3 mm to about 7 mm.
While not expressly to scale, Meschter Fig. 2 appears to show the width as exceeding 7 mm (see annotated Fig. 2 – b presented in above addressing of claim 22).
However, and in further view of Meschter:
Meschter Figs. 1 and 3 teaches that an incision 44g can be provided closer to the biteline than the incision 44d of Fig. 2.
Moreover, Meschter further teaches “various incisions are formed in stratified material 40 to expose underlying layers of stratified material 40. By exposing the underlying layers, the properties of stratified material 40, and thereby the properties of upper 30, may be selectively modified. Accordingly, the incisions formed in stratified material 40 are utilized to selectively vary the properties of stratified material 40 in specific portions of upper 30. Potential properties of stratified material 40 that may be varied...include color...for example” (para 23). Meschter further teaches the “incisions” are “to affect physical or aesthetic properties of the stratified material” (para 2). And Meschter further teaches “The present invention is disclosed above and in the accompanying drawings with reference to a variety of embodiments. The purpose served by the disclosure, however, is to provide an example of the various features and concepts related to the invention, not to limit the scope of the invention. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that numerous variations and modifications may be made to the embodiments described above” (para 59).
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 Meschter such that its one or more widths are in a range of about 3 mm to about 7 mm in order to yield the predictable result of exposing the yellow color at a location that is in the range of about 3 mm to about 7 mm of the biteline to yield a footwear article whose aesthetic presentation of yellow at that location which is desirable to at least some user(s) and/or observer(s) of the article of footwear.
Regarding claim 24:
Meschter in view of Auyang teach The footwear article of claim 21, as set forth above.
The modified Meschter further meets the limitation wherein the one or more widths comprise a first width at a first position around a periphery of the footwear article and a second width at a second position around the periphery of the footwear article (see above treatment of claim 21 where the limitation is addressed).
Regarding claim 25:
Meschter in view of Auyang teach The footwear article of claim 24, as set forth above.
Meschter does not expressly disclose wherein the first position is in a forefoot region of the footwear article and the second position is in a midfoot region of the footwear article.
However and in further view of Meschter:
Meschter Figs. 1-7 teaches a region of the upper that displays the yellow color of second layer 42 spans along a side of the upper in such a way that a first position (see annotated Fig. 1 – d below) is in a forefoot region of the footwear article and a second position (see annotated Fig. 1 – d below) is in a midfoot region of the footwear article.
PNG
media_image8.png
697
982
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 Meschter such that the first position is in a forefoot region of the footwear article and the second position is in a midfoot region of the footwear article in order to yield the predictable result of exposing a yellow color at the first position and second position at different widths away from the biteline and spanning the forefoot and midfoot regions thereof in order to yield a footwear article whose aesthetic presentation of yellow at those respective locations and widths which is desirable to at least some user(s) and/or observer(s) of the article of footwear.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Meschter, US 2004/0261295] and [Auyang, US 2019/0365040] as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of [Baghdadi, US 2019/0276626, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 27:
Meschter in view of Auyang teach The footwear article of claim 21, as set forth above.
Meschter does not expressly disclose wherein the sole structure comprises a first thermoplastic composition, and wherein, in the second zone, the second portion of the outermost surface comprises a surface chemical composition that is different from the first thermoplastic composition.
However, Baghdadi teaches a sole structure (“athletic footwear midsole[]” and/or “athletic footwear []outsole[]) comprising a first thermoplastic composition (“thermoplastic...is particu[l]arly suitable for athletic equipment and apparel, particularly footwear (e.g., athletic footwear midsoles/outsoles)”; para 14. Baghdadi further teaches the thermoplastic composition “exhibits a...balance of properties such as high energy return, high split tear, low density, and low compression set” (para 14) and “demonstrate improved physical properties including one or more of an enhanced energy return, and enhanced split tear, a decreased density, or a combination thereof” (para 27).
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 Meschter such that its sole structure is comprising a first thermoplastic composition in order to afford one or more of: improved energy return, improved split tear, low density, and low compression set, as taught by Baghdadi (paras 14, 27).
In adopting the modification, the limitation “and wherein, in the second zone, the second portion of the outermost surface comprises a surface chemical composition that is different from the first thermoplastic composition” would be met in that the upper is a discrete element from the sole structure such that a surface chemical composition of the second zone of the upper is different from the first thermoplastic composition in that the sole structure and upper are different elements.
Regarding claim 28:
Meschter in view of Auyang and Baghdadi teach The footwear article of claim 27, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 27, the modified Meschter does not meet the limitation wherein the first thermoplastic composition comprises a polyolefin resin composition.
However and in further view of Baghdadi:
Baghdadi teaches the thermoplastic composition of a sole structure comprises a polyolefin resin composition (“terpolymers of ethylene, acrylic acid, and methyl acrylate or butyl acrylate”; para 89; it is noted the present disclosure states that “ethylene/alkyl acrylate copolymers” and “ethylene/acrylic acid copolymers” are “Exemplary polyolefin copolymers” (see para [0148] as filed).
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 Meschter such that its first thermoplastic composition comprises a polyolefin resin composition in order to yield the one or more of: improved energy return, improved split tear, low density, and low compression set; one of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which specific thermoplastic composition to adopt, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the polyolefin resin composition taught by Baghdadi would be an acceptable material for the first thermoplastic composition based on the teachings of Baghdadi.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Meschter, US 2004/0261295], [Auyang, US 2019/0365040], and [Baghdadi, US 2019/0276626] as applied to claim 28 above and further in view of [Ortley, US 2009/0119948 previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 29:
Meschter in view of Auyang and Baghdadi teach The footwear article of claim 28, as set forth above.
Meschter does not expressly disclose wherein the surface chemical composition comprises a polyurethane composition.
However, Ortley teaches a footwear upper wherein a surface chemical composition comprises a polyurethane composition: “Outer layer 222 is formed of a synthetic hydrophobic material or a liquid impermeable material, such as thermoplastic polyurethane”; para 51.
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 Meschter such that the surface chemical composition comprises a polyurethane composition in order to protect the footwear upper from permeation of water and/or other liquid, as suggested by Ortley (para 51).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Meschter, US 2004/0261295], [Auyang, US 2019/0365040], and [Baghdadi, US 2019/0276626] as applied to claim 27 above and further in view of [Martuch, US 3,574,958, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 12/16/2025].
Regarding claim 30:
Meschter in view of Auyang and Baghdadi teach The footwear article of claim 27, as set forth above.
Meschter does not expressly disclose wherein the first portion of the outermost surface comprises the surface chemical composition that comprises a polyolefin resin composition.
However, Martuch teaches a footwear upper wherein an outermost surface thereof comprises a surface chemical composition that comprises a polyolefin resin composition: “shoe upper is made of impermeable material such as...polyolefin”; col. 3 lines 39-41.
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 Meschter such that the first portion of the outermost surface comprises the surface chemical composition that comprises a polyolefin resin composition in order to render the first portion impervious to water, as suggested by Martuch (col. 3 lines 39-41).
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