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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and Species 2 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 11/18/2025, Claims 15 and 17 are amended. Claims 16, 18, and 20 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are new. Therefore, claims 1-15, 17, 19, and 21-23 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2025, 4/10/2025, 4/15/2025, 6/26/2025, 10/3/2025, and 11/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to for the following informalities: the claim recites “at least some of the bonds of the second set are aligned with the at least some of the bonds of the first set”. No “at least some of the bonds of the first set” has been previously claimed, so “the” preceding “at least some of the bonds of the first set” should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13-15, 17, 19 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.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the second side of the first polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the first side of the second polymeric sheet at a third set of bonds of the plurality of bonds”. This limitation is unclear because “a plurality of bonds” was defined in claim 1 as “the core including at least one polymeric sheet traversing the interior cavity between and directly bonded to the opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet at a plurality of bonds to tether the first barrier sheet to the second barrier sheet”. Thus, it is understood that “the plurality of bonds” must be direct bonds between the core and the opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet. Therefore, it does not make sense for a “third set of bonds of the plurality of bonds” to be referring to internal bonds solely between layers of the core. For the purposes of examination, the third set of bonds has been considered a separate group of bonds that is in addition to the “plurality of bonds” between the core and the first and second barrier sheets.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudy (US 5042176).
Regarding claim 1, Rudy discloses: An article of footwear comprising: a sole structure having a cushioning component (75), the cushioning component including: a bladder including a first barrier sheet (79) and a second barrier sheet (80) defining an interior cavity between opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet (see annotated figure 10 below, see also figure 10A), the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet sealed to one another along a peripheral bond to enclose the interior cavity and retain a gas in the interior cavity (see annotated figure 10 below); and a core (78) disposed in the interior cavity and spaced entirely inward of the peripheral bond (“there is also a peripheral chamber and all the chambers are interconnected” column 16, lines 42-43; see also figure 10), the core including at least one polymeric sheet traversing the interior cavity between and directly bonded to the opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet at a plurality of bonds to tether the first barrier sheet to the second barrier sheet (“the third or intermediate sheet 78 of elastomeric material is positioned between barrier members 79 and 80 of the previously formed part prior to welding. In this form, some of the welds 81, 81a, 82, 83, 84, and 85 are on the upper portions, while other welds 81, 86, 87, 88 are on the lower part” column 16, lines 36-42), the at least one polymeric sheet displaced from the opposing inner surfaces by the gas at unbonded areas of the at least one polymeric sheet (see figure 10A showing the sheet of the core being displaced from the opposing inner surfaces when the bladder is inflated), the plurality of bonds including at least one bond (85) extending continuously from a medial end of the at least one bond adjacent to a medial edge of the core to a lateral end of the at least one bond adjacent to a lateral edge of the core (see annotated figure 10 below); wherein the at least one bond is wider in a fore-aft direction of the core at the medial end and at the lateral end than at a narrowed portion of the at least one bond between the medial end and the lateral end (see annotated figure 10 below); and wherein the plurality of bonds are configured such that the gas in the interior cavity is in fluid communication around the at least one polymeric sheet without the at least one polymeric sheet creating any sealed chambers within the bladder that are not in fluid communication with the interior cavity (“there is also a peripheral chamber and all the chambers are interconnected” column 16, lines 42-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 10 of Rudy
Regarding claim 2, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the at least one bond is nonlinear (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the “at least one bond” is nonlinear because it contains curves).
Regarding claim 3, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 2, wherein the at least one bond that is nonlinear has linear segments (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the “at least one bond” has two linear segments).
Regarding claim 4, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the at least one bond has peaks and valleys extending in the fore-aft direction of the core (see annotated figure 10 below showing the “at least one bond” has peaks and valleys insofar as defined by the claim).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 10 of Rudy showing the peaks and valleys
Regarding claim 5, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the narrowed portion of the at least one bond is at a middle of the at least one bond in a transverse direction of the core (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the narrowed portion of the “at least one bond” is at the middle of the bond).
Regarding claim 6, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the at least one bond is symmetrical in a transverse direction of the core about the narrowed portion along a majority of the at least one bond in the transverse direction (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the “at least one bond” is symmetrical about the narrowed portion along a majority of the bond).
Regarding claim 7, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein each bond of the plurality of bonds extends continuously from the medial edge of the core to the lateral edge of the core and is wider in the fore-aft direction of the core at the medial edge and at the lateral edge than at a narrowed portion of the bond between the medial edge and the lateral edge (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing that all of the bonds extend continuously from the medial edge of the core to the lateral edge of the core and is wider at the medial edge and lateral edge than at a narrowed portion in between).
Regarding claim 8, Rudy discloses: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein anti-weld material is disposed on the core at the unbonded areas (“in making the part just described, it is necessary to […] introduce a release agent in the appropriate locations so that only two of the three sheets will join together” column 16, lines 46-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudy.
Regarding claim 11, the previously relied upon embodiment of Rudy discloses a group of bonds in a heel region, but does not explicitly disclose: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of bonds includes a first group of bonds in a forefoot region of the article of footwear and a second group of bonds in a heel region of the article of footwear; and spacing in the fore-aft direction of the core between adjacent bonds of the first group of bonds is less than spacing in the fore-aft direction of the core between adjacent bonds of the second group of bonds such that the opposing inner surfaces are held closer to one another by the at least one polymeric sheet of the core in the forefoot region than in the heel region.
However, Rudy also teaches an embodiment in which the bladder extends the full length of the sole from the forefoot to the heel region (see figures 15-15D).
Rudy teaches analogous art to the instant invention in the field of footwear with cushioning components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the embodiment of Rudy shown in figures 10 and 10A with the alternately bonded intermediate sheet into a full length bladder as shown in figures 15-15D of Rudy in order to provide improved cushioning to the entire foot, which would make the footwear more comfortable to wear. See figure 15 annotated below illustrating how the alternate bonds would look on a full length bladder as modified.
PNG
media_image3.png
411
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 15 of Rudy showing the alternating bonds of the embodiment of figure 10 as modified to be in a full length bladder as shown in the embodiment of figure 15
Regarding claim 12, the previously relied upon embodiment of Rudy does not explicitly disclose: The cushioning component of claim 1, wherein an outer perimeter of the at least one polymeric sheet of the core is spaced further inward of the peripheral bond in a heel region of the article of footwear than in a forefoot region of the article of footwear.
However, Rudy also teaches an embodiment in which the bladder extends the full length of the sole from the forefoot to the heel region (see figures 15-15D).
Rudy teaches analogous art to the instant invention in the field of footwear with cushioning components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the embodiment of Rudy shown in figures 10 and 10A with the alternately bonded intermediate sheet into a full length bladder as shown in figures 15-15D of Rudy in order to provide improved cushioning to the entire foot, which would make the footwear more comfortable to wear. See annotated figure 15 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 11 above, which shows how the alternate bonds would look on a full length bladder as modified. Examiner notes that the annotated figure shows that, as modified, the outer perimeter of the sheet of the core is spaced further inward of the peripheral bond in the heel region than in the forefoot region as the bonds are clearly shown to be spaced more inwardly in the heel region than in the forefoot region.
Claim(s) 9, 13-14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudy in view of Potter (US 5755001).
Regarding claim 9, Rudy appears to disclose: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the core lays flat within the bladder with the unbonded areas contacting the opposing inner surfaces when the interior cavity of the bladder is uninflated.
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit teaching of the core laying flat with the unbonded areas contacting the opposing inner surfaces when uninflated, Potter teaches a bladder with an internal tensile member which is “attached in a flat state” (see column 5, lines 15-20; see also column 4, lines 28-39 describing how the flat sheets are aligned, bonded, and then inflated afterward).
Potter teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cushioning components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to manufacture the bladder of Rudy such that the core lays flat within the bladder with the unbonded areas contacting the opposing inner surfaces when the interior cavity of the bladder is uninflated, as taught by Potter, in order to have “the tensile member is in its least stressed condition when the bladder is fully compressed. This configuration ensures that the tensile member will not compromise the cushioning properties of air as it will tend to readily move to its least stressed state, i.e., […] flat, when the bladder is compressed” (Potter, column 5, lines 11-24), which will improve the cushioning effect of the bladder.
Regarding claim 13, Rudy does not explicitly disclose: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein: the opposing inner surfaces of the bladder include a first inner surface of the first barrier sheet and a second inner surface of the second barrier sheet; the at least one polymeric sheet of the core includes a first polymeric sheet and a second polymeric sheet, the first polymeric sheet disposed between the first barrier sheet and the second polymeric sheet, and the second polymeric sheet disposed between the first polymeric sheet and the second barrier sheet such that a first side of the first polymeric sheet faces the first inner surface of the first barrier sheet, a second side of the first polymeric sheet faces a first side of the second polymeric sheet, and a second side of the second polymeric sheet faces the second inner surface of the second barrier sheet; and the first side of the first polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the first inner surface of the first barrier sheet at a first set of bonds of the plurality of bonds, the second side of the second polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the second inner surface of the second barrier sheet at a second set of bonds of the plurality of bonds, the second side of the first polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the first side of the second polymeric sheet at a third set of bonds of the plurality of bonds, the bonds of the third set alternating with the bonds of the first set along a length of the core, and the bonds of the third set alternating with the bonds of the second set along the length of the core.
However, Potter teaches a sole structure having a bladder (50) including a first barrier sheet (54) and a second barrier sheet (56) defining an interior cavity between opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet, the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet sealed to one another along a peripheral bond to enclose the interior cavity and retain a gas in the interior cavity (“the outer layers are then sealed around the periphery and the bladder is inflated with a gas” column 4, lines 38-39); the opposing inner surfaces of the bladder include a first inner surface of the first barrier sheet and a second inner surface of the second barrier sheet (the first barrier sheet 54 has a first inner surface and the second barrier sheet 56 has a second inner surface); and a core (52) disposed in the interior cavity and spaced entirely inward of the peripheral bond; the at least one polymeric sheet of the core includes a first polymeric sheet (58) and a second polymeric sheet (60), the first polymeric sheet disposed between the first barrier sheet and the second polymeric sheet, and the second polymeric sheet disposed between the first polymeric sheet and the second barrier sheet such that a first side of the first polymeric sheet faces the first inner surface of the first barrier sheet, a second side of the first polymeric sheet faces a first side of the second polymeric sheet, and a second side of the second polymeric sheet faces the second inner surface of the second barrier sheet (“bladder 50 is a contoured envelope comprising outer barrier layers 54 and 56 which will be referred to for ease of explanation as top outer layer or top barrier 54 and bottom outer layer or bottom barrier 56. Within the envelope, two inner sheets, top inner sheet 58 and bottom inner sheet 60, are combined to form tensile element 52” column 6, lines 29-35; see also figure 11); and the first side of the first polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the first inner surface of the first barrier sheet at a first set of bonds of the plurality of bonds, the second side of the second polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the second inner surface of the second barrier sheet at a second set of bonds of the plurality of bonds, the second side of the first polymeric sheet is directly bonded to the first side of the second polymeric sheet at a third set of bonds of the plurality of bonds, the bonds of the third set alternating with the bonds of the first set along a length of the core, and the bonds of the third set alternating with the bonds of the second set along the length of the core (see figure 11 annotated below showing the three sets of bonds).
PNG
media_image4.png
306
607
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 11 of Potter showing the three sets of bonds as claimed
Potter teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cushioning components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a second inner sheet with alternating bonds, as taught by Potter, to the core of Rudy in order to create hinges which “allow the tensile member to compress while not interfering with the cushioning properties of the gas” (Potter, column 4, lines 40-48), which will improve the cushioning effect and comfort for the wearer while also preventing fatigue failure (see Potter, column 4, lines 47-48). Examiner notes that as modified, the core of Rudy would have the alternating bond configuration as shown in figure 11 of Potter, annotated above.
Regarding claim 14, Rudy as modified discloses: The article of footwear of claim 13, wherein each of the first set, the second set, and the third set includes at least one bond that extends continuously from the medial edge of the core to the lateral edge of the core and is wider in the fore-aft direction of the core at the medial edge and at the lateral edge than at a narrowed portion of the bond between the medial edge and the lateral edge (as modified, Rudy has the three sets of bonds as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 above, and this modification has not changed the overall shape of the bonds disclosed by Rudy which includes the circular portions on the medial and lateral end of each bond, as seen in figure 10 of Rudy; these circular portions are wider in the fore-aft direction at the medial and lateral edges, and the portion in between them is a narrowed portion, therefore the claim limitation is met).
Regarding claim 17, Rudy as modified discloses: The article of footwear of claim 14, wherein a foremost bond of the first set and a foremost bond of the second set are further forward than a foremost bond of the third set; and/or wherein a rearmost bond of the first set and a rearmost bond of the second set are further rearward than a rearmost bond of the third set (see annotated figure 11 of Potter provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 above, which shows that a foremost bond of the first and second set are further forward than a foremost bond of the third set and a rearmost bond of the first set and second set are further rearward than a rearmost bond of the third set).
Regarding claim 19, Rudy as modified discloses: The article of footwear of claim 14, wherein at least some of the bonds of the second set are aligned with the at least some of the bonds of the first set along the length of the core when the interior cavity of the bladder is in an uninflated state (see annotated figure 11 of Potter provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 above, which shows that at least some of the bonds of the second set are aligned with at least some of the bonds of the first set; Examiner notes that it is also understood that the bonds would all be aligned in some way because as shown in figure 10 of Rudy, the bonds are all oriented in the same direction).
Claim(s) 10, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudy in view of Meschter (US 2017/0042286).
Regarding claim 10, Rudy does not explicitly disclose: The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein a medial edge of the bladder defines a first notch and an inner medial edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the first notch; and/or wherein a lateral edge of the bladder defines a second notch and an inner lateral edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the second notch.
However, Meschter teaches a bladder wherein a medial edge of the bladder defines a first notch (830C) and an inner medial edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the first notch (“The notches 830A, 830B, 830C, 830D are created by an inward jutting of the sidewall barrier portions, also referred to as side walls of the second sheet 814” paragraph 184; see figure 45); wherein a lateral edge of the bladder defines a second notch (830D) and an inner lateral edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the second notch (“The notches 830A, 830B, 830C, 830D are created by an inward jutting of the sidewall barrier portions, also referred to as side walls of the second sheet 814” paragraph 184; see figure 45).
Meschter teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cushioning elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a first and second notch, as taught by Meschter, to the bladder of Rudy in order to “[provide] greater compressive stiffness for compressive downward loads at the heel portion 13” (Meschter, paragraph 184), which will improve the support for the user’s foot, especially while doing high impact activities like running or playing sports. See annotated figure 15 of Meschter and figure 10 of Rudy below showing where the notches would be located on Rudy as modified.
PNG
media_image5.png
621
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 45 of Meschter aligned with Figure 10 of Rudy to show where the notches of Meschter would be located on Rudy as modified
Regarding claim 21, Rudy discloses: An article of footwear comprising: a sole structure having a cushioning component (75), the cushioning component including: a bladder including a first barrier sheet (79) and a second barrier sheet (80) defining an interior cavity between opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; see also figure 10A), the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet sealed to one another along a peripheral bond to enclose the interior cavity and retain a gas in the interior cavity (see annotated figure 10 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above); and a core (78) disposed in the interior cavity and spaced entirely inward of the peripheral bond (“there is also a peripheral chamber and all the chambers are interconnected” column 16, lines 42-43; see also figure 10), the core including at least one polymeric sheet traversing the interior cavity between and directly bonded to the opposing inner surfaces of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet at a plurality of bonds to tether the first barrier sheet to the second barrier sheet (“the third or intermediate sheet 78 of elastomeric material is positioned between barrier members 79 and 80 of the previously formed part prior to welding. In this form, some of the welds 81, 81a, 82, 83, 84, and 85 are on the upper portions, while other welds 81, 86, 87, 88 are on the lower part” column 16, lines 36-42), the at least one polymeric sheet displaced from the opposing inner surfaces by the gas at unbonded areas of the at least one polymeric sheet (see figure 10A showing the sheet of the core being displaced from the opposing inner surfaces when the bladder is inflated); and wherein the plurality of bonds are configured such that the gas in the interior cavity is in fluid communication around the at least one polymeric sheet without the at least one polymeric sheet creating any sealed chambers within the bladder that are not in fluid communication with the interior cavity (“there is also a peripheral chamber and all the chambers are interconnected” column 16, lines 42-43).
Rudy does not explicitly disclose: wherein a medial edge of the bladder defines a first notch and an inner medial edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the first notch; wherein a lateral edge of the bladder defines a second notch and an inner lateral edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the second notch.
However, Meschter teaches a bladder wherein a medial edge of the bladder defines a first notch (830C) and an inner medial edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the first notch (“The notches 830A, 830B, 830C, 830D are created by an inward jutting of the sidewall barrier portions, also referred to as side walls of the second sheet 814” paragraph 184; see figure 45); wherein a lateral edge of the bladder defines a second notch (830D) and an inner lateral edge of the peripheral bond protrudes laterally inward at the second notch (“The notches 830A, 830B, 830C, 830D are created by an inward jutting of the sidewall barrier portions, also referred to as side walls of the second sheet 814” paragraph 184; see figure 45).
Meschter teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cushioning elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a first and second notch, as taught by Meschter, to the bladder of Rudy in order to “[provide] greater compressive stiffness for compressive downward loads at the heel portion 13” (Meschter, paragraph 184), which will improve the support for the user’s foot, especially while doing high impact activities like running or playing sports. See annotated figure 15 of Meschter and figure 10 of Rudy provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 10 above showing where the notches would be located on Rudy as modified.
Regarding claim 22, Rudy as modified discloses: The article of footwear of claim 21, wherein the first notch is at least partially aligned with the second notch in a transverse direction of the sole structure such that a width of the interior cavity in a lateral direction of the sole structure is narrowed between the first notch and the second notch (see figure 45 of Meschter/figure 10 of Rudy provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 10 above for the positioning of the notches on Rudy as modified, the notches are at last partially aligned and the width of the interior cavity in a lateral direction is narrowed between the notches).
Regarding claim 23, Rudy as modified discloses: The article of footwear of claim 21, wherein the first notch and the second notch are disposed in a forefoot region or in a midfoot region of the article of footwear (see figure 45 of Meschter/figure 10 of Rudy provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 10 above for the positioning of the notches on Rudy as modified, as shown in the figure, the notches are located in a midfoot region).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach, alone or in combination, “The article of footwear of claim 14, wherein a difference between a width at the medial edge and a width at the narrowed portion of the at least one bond of the second set is greater than a difference between a width at the medial edge and a width at the narrowed portion of the at least one bond of the first set; and/or wherein a difference between a width at the medial edge and a width at the narrowed portion of the at least one bond of the second set is greater than a difference between a width at the medial edge and a width at the narrowed portion of the at least one bond of the third set” as required by claim 15. The closest prior art is Rudy as modified by Potter. Rudy teaches the narrowed portions, but does not teach the three sets of bonds. Even if Rudy is modified by Potter, which does teach the three sets of bonds as claimed in claim 14, Potter does not teach that there is a difference in the width of narrowed portions for bonds between different sheets in the bladder as claimed in claim 15, so the one of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the claimed invention from the teachings of Rudy in view of Potter without improper hindsight reasoning based on Applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bailey (US 2018/0332925), Elder (US 2018/0338578), Elder (US 2021/0368920), Connell (US 2023/0404210), and Tawney (US 6571490) teach relevant footwear with bladders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732