DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 05/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are presented.
Claims 9-12 remain withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1-8 and 13 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks 05/05/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s remarks are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon review of the amendment of 05/05/2026, Applicant’s remarks of 05/05/2026, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 101 rejections applied in the previous Office action are overcome.
Regarding Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower portion of the second midsole portion and the lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites new matter in reciting “a lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view”. Fig. 7 shows an overlap in the up-down direction of the sole structure an overlap between second midsole portion 22 and bottom portion 32 such that “a lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view” is new matter.
Claims 3-5 are rejected if only because they depend from a rejected claim.
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 3-5 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 3 is indefinite insofar as it is not understood how “the bottom portion covers the second boundary portion from under the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion” as claimed in claim 3 and further wherein “a lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view” as claimed in claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends. In other words, it is not understood the limitation “not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view” of claim 2 is met along with “the bottom portion covers the second boundary portion from under the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion” of claim 3 insofar covering the second boundary from under both the first midsole portion and also the second midsole portion would result in overlap between the three elements: i.e. overlap between first midsole portion, second midsole portion, and bottom portion. For the purpose of applying art, claim 3 limitations are met if a prior art teaches claim 2 limitations and further wherein the boundary portion of the overlap portion further includes a second boundary portion defined by a line and located at a bottom of the first midsole portion and a bottom of the second midsole portion in bottom view and, in addition, the bottom portion does not cover the second boundary portion from under the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion.
Claims 4-5 are indefinite if only because they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Campos, US 2021/0145118, newly cited] in view of [Lyden, US 5,625,964, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Campos discloses (Figs. 1-6):
A sole structure 100 comprising:
a first midsole portion 108 made of a first material (“formed of a resilient polymeric material, such as foam or rubber, to impart properties of cushioning, responsiveness, and energy distribution to the foot of the wearer”; para 79);
a second midsole portion 106 which is made of a second material (“fluid, such as a gas or liquid” (para 73) configured to be “compressed under the load of a foot” (para 68) so as to “provide cushioning...to attenuate ground-reaction forces” (para 5) that is the same as or different from the first material (gas or liquid of 106 is different from foam or rubber of 108), and at least part of which is stacked above or below the first midsole portion (at least part of second midsole portion 106 is stacked below first midsole portion 108; Figs. 2 and 4-6); and
an exterior portion 110 made of a third material (a material of “heel counter 110”),
wherein
a boundary portion of an overlap portion in which the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion overlap with each other in a top-bottom direction includes a first boundary portion (see annotated Figs. 2 and 5-6 – a below) defined by a line (Figs. 5 and 6 each show in “cross-sectional view” where the line is; it is noted “a receptacle 186 configured to receive the interior chamber 134, and a channel 188 configured to receive the upper edge 170 a of the bladder 106.¶As shown in FIGS. 4 and 6, the receptacle 186 formed in the recessed surface 180 corresponds in shape to the shape of the interior chamber 134, such that the receptacle 186 conforms to the outer profile of the interior chamber 134” (paras 76-77) such that the line extends on each of medial and lateral sides through the points identified in annotated Figs. 2 and 5-6 – a below) and located on each of a medial side and a lateral side in side view and extending in a foot length direction (Figs. 1-6; paras 76-77),
the exterior portion 110 covers the first boundary portion from outside of the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion (Figs. 1 and 5-6),
the exterior portion includes:
a pair of side wall portions (see annotated Figs. 2 and 5-6 – a below) located on the medial side and the lateral side, respectively, and each covering the first boundary portion in a lateral direction of the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion (as in annotated Figs. 2 and 5-6 – a below and as evident in Fig. 1); and
a bottom portion (see annotated Figs. 2 and 5-6 – a below) located below the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion (para 92; Figs. 1 and 3),
each of the pair of side wall portions extends along a direction parallel to an extending direction of the first boundary portion in side view (Figs. 1-2 and 5-6), and
each of the pair of side wall portions extends obliquely upward from the bottom portion while extending rearward from a rear portion of the bottom portion (Figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
819
1614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Campos does not expressly the exterior portion 110 made of a third material having higher rigidity than the first material and the second material.
Lyden teaches a material of a heel counter has a higher rigidity than material of a midsole: “heel counters are commonly incorporated into athletic and other shoes for properly positioning and providing stability to the heel...Heel counters are...formed of relatively rigid material (as compared to...midsole materials)”; col. 4 lines 19-23.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the sole structure of Campos such that its third material is having a higher rigidity than the first material and the second material in order to properly position and/or provide stability to the wearer’s heel, as suggested by Lyden (col. 4 lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 13:
Campos in view of Lyden teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Campos further meets the limitation A shoe 10 (i.e. 10 of Campos) comprising the sole structure of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 3-4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Campos, US 2021/0145118] and [Lyden, US 5,625,964] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Groenweg, US 2017/0347747, newly cited], [Holden, US 2006/0156581, previously cited], [Giese, US 4,316,335, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Campos in view of Lyden teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Campos further discloses:
the first midsole portion is located at part 12 of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to at least a forefoot portion of a wearer (Figs. 1-2 and 4),
the second midsole portion is located at part 16 of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to at least a rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer (Figs. 1-4 and 6).
a lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part 16 of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer.
Campos further does not expressly disclose the lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view.
In further view of Campos:
Campos Figs. 1-2 appears to show the lower portion of the second midsole portion and the bottom portion arranged in such a way that the lower portion of the second midsole portion and the bottom portion do not overlap in bottom view; however, the precise location of the lower portion of the second midsole portion relative to the bottom portion cannot determined by the drawings along, and the two elements (i.e. the second midsole portion and the bottom portion) appear to be close to each other (see particularly Fig. 2) such that the appear to be not overlapping. In addition, a person of ordinary skill would look to the description of the bottom portion in Campos and expect the function of “each of the fingers 196 a, 196 b extends to a respective distal end 197 a, 197 b beneath the outsole 104, such that the outsole 104 is captured between the distal ends 197 a, 197 b of the fingers 196 a, 196 b and the bottom surface 178 of the chassis 108” to occur successfully if the lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view as claimed.
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 Campos such that the lower portion of the second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure configured to correspond to the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view, as appears to be the case in Figs. 1-2, in order to yield the predictable result of providing stability to the sole structure in the area directly in front of the lower portion of the second midsole portion.
Campos does not expressly disclose the bottom portion is located only at part of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to the forefoot portion and a midfoot portion of the foot of the wearer.
Rather, in Campos, the bottom portion is located at a part of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to a midfoot portion 14 (Figs. 1-3).
However, Groenweg teaches a sole structure wherein a bottom portion 1382, 1384 (i.e. the combined 1382, 1384) of an exterior portion 1380 wherein the bottom portion 1382, 1384 is located only at (para 84; Figs. 13-14) part 1310, 1312 (i.e. the combined “forefoot portion 1310, and...midfoot portion 1312”; para 83) of a sole structure that is configured to correspond to a forefoot portion and a midfoot portion of a foot of a wearer. Groenweg further teaches “the portions of the” exterior portion “disposed in the midfoot and forefoot portions of the article of footwear, may control the flexion of the forefoot portion of the article of footwear” (para 40).
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 Campos such that the bottom portion is located only at part of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to the forefoot portion and a midfoot portion of the foot of the wearer in order to provide stability to the forefoot portion of the sole structure, as suggested by Groenweg (para 40).
Campos does not expressly disclose the first material is a material having higher rebound properties than the second material, the second material is a material having higher impact absorbing properties than the first material and having lower rebound properties than the first material
However, Holden teaches a first midsole portion 144 that is located at a part of a sole structure configured to correspond to a position of a forefoot portion of a foot of a wearer and a second midsole portion 134 that is located at a part of the sole structure configured to correspond to a rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer.
Holden further teaches the rebound properties of each are within the range of “not greater than about 35 per cent” (“elastomeric pad may be disposed in the resilient mid-sole of the footwear below the ball of the wearer's foot, and as in the heel portion of the shoe, this pad may comprise” material having “Shore resiliometer rebound percentage of not greater than about 35 per cent”; para 20.
Holden further teaches that footwear components having a “spring characteristic”, a “portion of the kinetic energy applied” thereto is “temporarily stored in the mechanism in the form of potential, or “spring” energy” (para 44) further wherein a material “when deformed, will quickly rebound, or return to its original, un-deflected configuration”; para 47.
Because Holden is concerned with desired kinetic energy return of materials of forefoot and rear foot portions via spring rebound and provides a range (i.e. each being “not greater than about 35 per cent”) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative rebound properties via routine experimentation in order to provide desired sole structure properties. The claimed relative rebound properties is merely an optimum or workable relative rebound properties and the relative rebound properties of the first and second materials are expected to affect kinetic energy rebound in forefoot and rearfoot regions of the sole structure.
Therefore, 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 Campos such that its first material is a material having higher rebound properties than the second material and its second material is a material having lower rebound properties than the first material in order to promote a greater springlike effect in the forefoot portion of the sole assembly than in the rearfoot portion of the sole assembly during a wearer’s gait cycle for a wearer who prefers such a springlike effect.
Regarding the second material is a material having higher impact absorbing properties than the first material:
Giese teaches a sole structure (Abstract) wherein a first midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure that corresponds to a position of at least a forefoot portion of a foot of a wearer, and a second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure that corresponds to a position of at least a rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer further wherein a second material of a second midsole portion is having higher impact absorbing properties than a first material of a first midsole portion: “mid-sole forming part of the sole portion extends over the heel, arch and forefoot areas of the sole portion and is made up of different materials having different shock absorbing properties such that the area of the mid-sole overlying the heel area comprises a...shock absorbing portion and the area of the mid-sole overlying the forefoot area comprises a...shock absorbing portion” having “lesser shock absorbing properties than the first portion”; col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 7.
Giese further teaches that “Because, particularly in the case of running shoes, the time that the heel contacts the ground is less than that when the forefoot contacts the ground, the intensity of the shock recorded by the heel is greater than that recorded by the forefoot” (col. 1 lines 28-32).
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 Campos such that the second material is a material having higher impact absorbing properties than the first material in order to permit the sole structure to absorb the relatively higher shock imparted into the rearfoot region than the forefoot region of the sole structure while a wearer is running, as suggested by Giese (col. 1 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 3:
Campos in view of Lyden, Groenweg, Holden, and Giese teach The sole structure of claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Campos further meets the limitation, as best understood, wherein the boundary portion of the overlap portion further includes a second boundary portion defined by a line and located at a bottom of the first midsole portion and a bottom of the second midsole portion in bottom view, and the bottom portion covers the second boundary portion from under the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion.
(As stated above in the above 35 USC 112 rejections: For the purpose of applying art, claim 3 limitations are met if a prior art teaches claim 2 limitations and further wherein the boundary portion of the overlap portion further includes a second boundary portion defined by a line and located at a bottom of the first midsole portion and a bottom of the second midsole portion in bottom view and, in addition, the bottom portion does not cover the second boundary portion from under the first midsole portion and the second midsole portion; insofar as the modified Campos meets the limitation “so as not to overlap with the bottom portion in bottom view” (see above treatment of claim 2), the bottom portion does not cover a second boundary portion defined by a line and located at a bottom of the first midsole portion and a bottom of the second midsole portion due to the not overlapping relationship in bottom view.)
Regarding claim 4:
Campos in view of Lyden, Groenweg, Holden, and Giese teach The sole structure of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Campos further meets the limitation wherein the bottom portion is configured to extend from a position corresponding to the midfoot portion to a position corresponding to the forefoot portion of the foot of the wearer in the sole structure (by virtue of the bottom portion being located at part of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to the forefoot portion and a midfoot portion of the foot of the wearer as explained in above addressing of claim 2 such that the bottom portion is configured to extend from a position corresponding to the midfoot portion to a position corresponding to the forefoot portion of the foot of the wearer in the sole structure as claimed.)
Claim(s) 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Campos, US 2021/0145118], [Lyden, US 5,625,964], [Groenweg, US 2017/0347747], [Holden, US 2006/0156581], and [Giese, US 4,316,335] as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of [Becker, US 2008/0216355, previously cited].
Regarding claim 5:
Campos in view of Lyden, Groenweg, Holden, and Giese teach The sole structure of claim 3, as set forth above.
Campos does not expressly disclose wherein the bottom portion includes an upper surface on which a first reinforcement portion made of a fourth material having higher rigidity than the third material is provided.
However, Becker teaches a sole structure wherein a bottom portion of an exterior portion 200 includes an upper surface on which a first reinforcement portion 250 made of a fourth material (“made of a substantially rigid...material”; para 61) having a higher rigidity than a third material of the exterior portion 200 (“more rigid than the outer member” (para 7)) further wherein a midsole portion 920 is provided above the combined exterior portion 200 and reinforcement portion 250 (Figs. 11-12; paras 81-82).
Becker teaches the first reinforcement portion comprises “puncture resistant material” (para 6) which is “resistant to puncturing” (para 61) and is “protective” (para 61) and for “protecting a wearer's foot from injury due to sharp objects” (para 70).
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 Campos such that the upper surface of its bottom portion is provided with a first reinforcement portion made of a fourth material having higher rigidity than the third material thereon in order to protect from puncture and/or injury due to sharp objects, as taught by Becker (paras 6, 61, and 70).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the bottom portion includes an upper surface on which a first reinforcement portion made of a fourth material having higher rigidity than the third material is provided as claimed insofar as the first reinforcement portion would be arranged such that the bottom portion includes an upper surface on which a first reinforcement portion made of a fourth material having higher rigidity than the third material is provided.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Campos, US 2021/0145118] and [Lyden, US 5,625,964] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Holden, US 2006/0156581, previously cited] and [Giese, US 4,316,335, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Campos in view of Lyden teaches The sole structure of claim 1, as set forth above.
Campos further discloses the first midsole portion 108 is located at part 12 of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to at least a forefoot portion of a foot of a wearer (para 40; Fig. 1), and the second midsole portion 106 is located at part 16 of the sole structure that is configured to correspond to at least a rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer (para 40; Fig. 1).
Campos does not expressly disclose wherein the first material is a material having higher rebound properties than the second material, the second material is a material having higher impact absorbing properties than the first material and having lower rebound properties than the first material.
However, Holden teaches a first midsole portion 144 that is located at a part of a sole structure configured to correspond to a position of a forefoot portion of a foot of a wearer and a second midsole portion 134 that is located at a part of the sole structure configured to correspond to a rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer.
Holden further teaches the rebound properties of each are within the range of “not greater than about 35 per cent” (“elastomeric pad may be disposed in the resilient mid-sole of the footwear below the ball of the wearer's foot, and as in the heel portion of the shoe, this pad may comprise” material having “Shore resiliometer rebound percentage of not greater than about 35 per cent”; para 20.
Holden further teaches that footwear components having a “spring characteristic”, a “portion of the kinetic energy applied” thereto is “temporarily stored in the mechanism in the form of potential, or “spring” energy” (para 44) further wherein a material “when deformed, will quickly rebound, or return to its original, un-deflected configuration”; para 47.
Because Holden is concerned with desired kinetic energy return of materials of forefoot and rear foot portions via spring rebound and provides a range (i.e. each being “not greater than about 35 per cent”) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed relative rebound properties via routine experimentation in order to provide desired sole structure properties. The claimed relative rebound properties is merely an optimum or workable relative rebound properties and the relative rebound properties of the first and second materials are expected to affect kinetic energy rebound in forefoot and rearfoot regions of the sole structure.
Therefore, 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 Campos such that its first material is a material having higher rebound properties than the second material and its second material is a material having lower rebound properties than the first material in order to promote a greater springlike effect in the forefoot portion of the sole assembly than in the rearfoot portion of the sole assembly during a wearer’s gait cycle for a wearer who prefers such a springlike effect.
Regarding the second material is a material having higher impact absorbing properties than the first material:
Giese teaches a sole structure (Abstract) wherein a first midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure that corresponds to a position of at least a forefoot portion of a foot of a wearer, and a second midsole portion is located at part of the sole structure that corresponds to a position of at least a rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer further wherein a second material of a second midsole portion is having higher impact absorbing properties than a first material of a first midsole portion: “mid-sole forming part of the sole portion extends over the heel, arch and forefoot areas of the sole portion and is made up of different materials having different shock absorbing properties such that the area of the mid-sole overlying the heel area comprises a...shock absorbing portion and the area of the mid-sole overlying the forefoot area comprises a...shock absorbing portion” having “lesser shock absorbing properties than the first portion”; col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 7.
Giese further teaches that “Because, particularly in the case of running shoes, the time that the heel contacts the ground is less than that when the forefoot contacts the ground, the intensity of the shock recorded by the heel is greater than that recorded by the forefoot” (col. 1 lines 28-32).
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 Campos such that the second material is a material having higher impact absorbing properties than the first material in order to permit the sole structure to absorb the relatively higher shock imparted into the rearfoot region than the forefoot region of the sole structure while a wearer is running, as suggested by Giese (col. 1 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 7:
Campos in view of Lyden, Holden, and Giese teach The sole structure of claim 6, as set forth above.
Campos further discloses wherein the overlap portion is located at part of the sole structure that is configured to range from a position (within the section view of Fig. 5 which is within mid-foot region 14 as evidenced in Fig. 3; Figs. 1-5) corresponding to a midfoot portion (para 14) to a position (within the section view of Fig. 6 which is within a front portion of heel region 16 as evidenced in Fig. 3; Figs. 1-5) corresponding to a front portion of the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer (Figs. 1-4 and 6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Campos, US 2021/0145118], [Lyden, US 5,625,964], [Holden, US 2006/0156581], and [Giese, US 4,316,335] as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of [Orvitz, US 2009/0094861, newly cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Campos in view of Lyden, Holden, and Giese teach The sole structure of claim 7, as set forth above.
Campos further discloses wherein a front part of the second midsole portion is located below a rear part of the first midsole portion (see annotated Fig. 4 – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
673
1053
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Campos does not expressly disclose and the first boundary portion is configured to extend from a lower side to an upper side of the sole structure while extending from the position corresponding to the midfoot portion to the position corresponding to the front portion of the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer in the sole structure.
However, Orvitz teaches a sole structure wherein a first boundary portion (between 12 and 16) is configured to extend from a lower side to an upper side of the sole structure while extending from a position corresponding to the midfoot portion to a position corresponding to the front portion of the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer in the sole structure (Fig. 1).
Orvitz further teaches the “thickness” afforded thereby is “increased in the arch area 20 and heel area 22 relative to the forefoot area 24. The increased thickness allows for extra support and cushioning (shock absorption) where required, while the relatively thinner area allows for toe clearance which may be needed in certain types of footwear” (para 77).
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 Campos such that the first boundary portion is configured to extend from a lower side to an upper side of the sole structure while extending from the position corresponding to the midfoot portion to the position corresponding to the front portion of the rear foot portion of the foot of the wearer in the sole structure in order to provide extra support and/or cushioning in the arch and/or heel areas; and/or to afford toe clearance at the forefoot region of the sole structure, as suggested by Orvitz (para 77).
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