DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on June 22, 2026, claims 1-3, 5, 11-12, and 15 have been amended, and claims 4, 6, 8, 14, and 16-20 have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, and 15 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on June 22, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated March 30, 2026, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 14-15 each appear to show multiple views in a single view. Although each figure includes a bracket, each bracket is unlabeled with a reference character and instead appears to improperly point to the corresponding figure view label. Therefore, the relationship among the multiple views within each of Figs. 14-15 is unclear. Based on Applicant’s disclosure and comments, it is suggested that the middle point of each bracket be properly labeled with a reference character (e.g., 301 and 401, respectively) to overcome this objection. The written description of the specification should be similarly updated to reflect any changes.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“755” as recited at least at [0138]
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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “an upwardly arching portion increasing in elevation along a medial to lateral direction” and “a downwardly arching portion decreasing in elevation along the medial to lateral direction” at lines 14-15 and 15-17, respectively. It is unclear with respect to what other structure and/or initial elevation the elevation of the arching portions are increasing or decreasing. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to recite some baseline structure or elevation level from which the elevation of the arching portions is increasing or decreasing. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the arching portions increase or decrease in elevation with respect to some other structure when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a medial to lateral direction” at lines 15-17. It is unclear how this direction relates to the previously introduced width direction. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If meant to refer to the same direction, it is suggested that the terms be brought into agreement with one another. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above wherein the directions are the same when applying prior art.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the connection bar” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As a result of the issue, it is further unclear how the first and second segments are meant to relate to the connection bar or the now-recited connection bar set. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the connection bar set”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above wherein the first and segments are some segments within the set when applying prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “an upwardly arching portion increasing in elevation along a medial to lateral direction” and “a downwardly arching portion decreasing in elevation along the medial to lateral direction” at lines 10 and 11-12, respectively. It is unclear with respect to what other structure and/or initial elevation the elevation of the arching portions are increasing or decreasing. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to recite some baseline structure or elevation level from which the elevation of the arching portions is increasing or decreasing. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the arching portions increase or decrease in elevation with respect to some other structure when applying prior art.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “a medial to lateral direction” at lines 10-12. It is unclear how this direction relates to the previously introduced width direction. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If meant to refer to the same direction, it is suggested that the terms be brought into agreement with one another. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above wherein the directions are the same when applying prior art.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13 and 15, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 2,386,667 to Doherty (hereinafter, “Doherty”).
Regarding claim 12, Doherty teaches a sole structure for a shoe, the sole structure comprising: a midsole (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; sole structure (10) for a shoe and having midsole positioned above lower outsole layer as seen in Figs. 2-3);
a stability structure at least partially positioned within the midsole (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; inner frame formed by members (11, 12, 14) and corresponding tubes (22, 23, 24) and connected at an end by link (20)) and comprising a plurality of rods extending in a length direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; tubes (22, 23, 24), i.e., the rods, extending in length direction of sole (10); Examiner notes that the term "rod" is very broad and merely means "a thin straight piece or bar of material, such as metal or wood, often having a particular function or use" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the plurality of rods are connected by a connection bar set extending in a width direction being transverse to the length direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; at least two of wires (30) connecting at least two of tubes (22, 23, 24) and extending in a width direction of sole (10) transverse to the length direction), the connection bar set comprising a first connection bar and a second connection bar each arching between and connecting at least two of the plurality of rods, the first and the second connection bar spaced apart from one another along the length direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3 and annotated Fig. 3 below; rearmost two of wires (30) spaced from one another in length direction and extending across and connecting tubes (22, 23, 24); each wire (30) has arching portions between tubes (22, 23, 24)), the first connection bar including an upwardly arching portion increasing in elevation along a medial to lateral direction, the second connection bar including a downwardly arching portion decreasing in elevation along the medial to lateral direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3 and annotated Fig. 3 below; each wire (30) includes upwardly arching portion and downwardly arching portion as elevation of each wire (30) changes in a left-to-right direction as seen in the annotated figure; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the downwardly arching portion of the second connection bar is positioned behind the upwardly arching portion of the first connection bar along the length direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3 and annotated Fig. 3 below; downwardly arching portion of rearmost wire (30) is positioned behind, i.e., rearward of, upwardly arching portion of middle wire (30) in the length direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Doherty
Regarding claim 13, Doherty (as discussed with respect to claim 12 above) further teaches wherein the plurality of rods comprises three rods (See Doherty, Fig. 1; tubes (22, 23, 24) comprise three tubes, i.e., rods).
Regarding claim 15, Doherty (as discussed with respect to claim 12 above) further teaches wherein the plurality of rods comprises at least four rods (See Doherty, Fig. 1; tubes (22, 23, 24) comprise four tubes, i.e., rods).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-10, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of US 2022/0378147 to Bruns et al. (hereinafter, “Bruns”).
Regarding claim 1, Doherty teaches a shoe comprising: a sole structure, the sole structure comprising: a midsole configured for providing cushioning (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; sole structure (10) for a shoe and having midsole positioned above lower outsole layer as seen in Figs. 2-3; midsole is capable of providing at least some amount of cushioning); an outsole having an outer surface configured for contacting ground (See Doherty, Figs. 2-3; lower layer of sole (10) positioned below midsole and being capable of contacting a ground surface); a stability structure at least partially positioned within the midsole (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; inner frame formed by members (11, 12, 14) and corresponding tubes (22, 23, 24) and connected at an end by link (20)), the stability structure comprising: a plurality of rods extending in a length direction from at least a midfoot region of the shoe toward a toe end of the shoe (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; tubes (22, 23, 24), i.e., the rods, extending in length direction from a midfoot region to a toe end of sole (10); Examiner notes that the term "rod" is very broad and merely means "a thin straight piece or bar of material, such as metal or wood, often having a particular function or use" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); and a connection bar set comprising a first connection bar and a second connection bar each arching between and connecting at least two of the plurality of rods in a forefoot region of the shoe, the connection bar extending in a width direction being transverse to the length direction, the first and the second connection bar spaced apart from one another along the length direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3 and annotated Fig. 3 above; rearmost two of wires (30) spaced from one another in length direction and extending across and connecting tubes (22, 23, 24) in a traverse direction; each wire (30) has arching portions between tubes (22, 23, 24)), the first connection bar including an upwardly arching portion increasing in elevation along a medial to lateral direction, the second connection bar including a downwardly arching portion decreasing in elevation along the medial to lateral direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3 and annotated Fig. 3 above; each wire (30) includes upwardly arching portion and downwardly arching portion as elevation of each wire (30) changes in a left-to-right direction as seen in the annotated figure; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the downwardly arching portion of the second connection bar is positioned behind the upwardly arching portion of the first connection bar along the length direction (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3 and annotated Fig. 3 above; downwardly arching portion of rearmost wire (30) is positioned behind, i.e., rearward of, upwardly arching portion of middle wire (30) in the length direction).
That said, although Doherty is directed a shoe and teaches the sole structure (10), Doherty is silent to explicitly stating that the sole structure is connected to a shoe upper.
However, Bruns, in a related supportive footwear art, is directed to an article of footwear having an internal reinforcing support structure (See Bruns, Fig. 16A; abstract). More specifically, Bruns teaches a sole structure being connected to a shoe upper (See Bruns, Fig. 16A; upper (1601) connected to sole (1605)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the upper of Bruns as a shoe upper on the sole structure disclosed by Doherty in order to cover a top of a wearer’s foot and complete the overall shoe structure envisioned by Doherty (See Doherty, Col. 1, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein each of the plurality of rods are connected at a first end at a junction area along the midfoot region and wherein a second end adjacent the toe end is free (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; first ends of tubes (22, 23, 24) are connected by link (20) in a junction area along the midfoot region of sole (10); second ends of tubes (22, 23, 24) are free of link (20) adjacent the toe end of sole (10); Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "along" is very broad and has a definition of "on a line or course parallel and close to; continuously beside" (Defn. No. 2 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the connection bar set is positioned between the first end and the second end (See Doherty, Fig. 1; wires (30) are positioned between ends of tubes (22, 23, 24)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the plurality of rods is generally planar along the forefoot region of the shoe.
However, Bruns further teaches wherein the plurality of rods is generally planar along the forefoot region of the shoe (See Bruns, Fig. 16A; rods (1620) in a forefoot region of shoe can be rods having a rectangular cross section which are generally planar; [0052]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to change the cross sectional shape of the rods of the modified shoe of Doherty to instead have the rectangular shape as disclosed by Bruns as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known rod shape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one rod shape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., providing reinforcing support and stability, and further since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 5, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the connection bar comprises a first segment connecting at least a first two of the plurality of rods (See Doherty, Fig. 1; wire (30) includes a first segment connecting at least lateral tubes (23, 24), i.e., topmost tubes in figure; Examiner notes that the term "segment" is very broad and merely means "one of the parts into which something is divided; a division, portion, or section". (Defn. No. 1 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and a second segment connecting at least a second two of the plurality of rods (See Doherty, Fig. 1; wire (30) includes a second segment connecting at least medial tubes (23, 24), i.e., bottommost tubes in figure).
Regarding claim 7, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the first segment has a first shape, and the second segment has a second shape (See Doherty, Fig. 3; first segment of wire (30) around two rightmost tubes (23, 24) has a first winding shape; second segment of wire (30) around leftmost tubes have a second winding shape; Examiner notes that the claim does not require that the first and second shapes be different shapes).
Regarding claim 9, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the plurality of rods extend generally parallel to a generally flat outer support surface of the outsole (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; tubes (22, 23, 24) extend generally parallel to the generally flat lowermost surface of outsole of sole (10)).
Regarding claim 10, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the midsole includes a cavity to receive the stability structure (See Doherty, Figs. 1-3; inner frame formed by members (11, 12, 14) and corresponding tubes (22, 23, 24) and connected at an end by link (20) is received in a corresponding cavity of midsole layer of sole (10)).
Claim 11, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Bruns, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0259744 to Cooper (hereinafter, “Cooper”).
Regarding claim 11, the modified shoe of Doherty (i.e. Doherty in view of Bruns, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the outsole includes one or more relief areas that are configured to change in width during a contact cycle with the ground.
However, Cooper, in a related footwear art, is directed to a shoe sole structure having a plurality of siped cut lines for flexibility (See Cooper, Fig. 5B; abstract). More specifically, Cooper teaches wherein the outsole includes one or more relief areas that are configured to change in width during a contact cycle with the ground (See Cooper, Fig. 5B; siped cut lines (506) at least in forefoot portion of outsole (502) open fuller when stretched, i.e., change in width; [0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the siped cutlines of Cooper in the outsole of the modified shoe of Doherty in order to increase flexibility of the outsole and sole structure by allowing the outsole to open fuller (See Cooper, [0052]-[0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Doherty’s wires (i.e., connection bars) are not arching between and connecting the tubes (i.e., rods), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, each wire of Doherty includes upwardly arching portions and downwardly arching portions as the relative elevation of each wire changes in a left-to-right direction as seen in the annotated Fig. 3 of Doherty (reproduced below). Indeed, these portions extend between the tubes (22, 23, 24) of Doherty and bind or connect the tubes together to at least some extent.
PNG
media_image1.png
175
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Doherty
Regarding Applicant argument that Doherty also does not teach the now-claimed arrangement of the downwardly arching portion of the second connection bar is positioned behind the upwardly arching portion of the first connection bar along the length direction, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, the downwardly arching portions of rearmost wire (i.e., the second connection bar) would be positioned behind or rearward of the upwardly arching portions of middle wire (i.e., the first connection bar) in the length direction, as the rearmost wire is positioned entirely behind the middle wire.
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 MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights