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 filed May 18, 2026 has been received, Claims 1 and 4-20 are currently pending, with Claims 7-9 and 17-19 remaining withdrawn from prosecution at this time.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 2013/0025035) in view of Lee (US 6,080,037).
Regarding Claim 1, Turner discloses an adjustment element (Fig.14C) for an article of apparel, the adjustment element comprising: a bladder (210,220) forming an interior void (as seen in Fig.9A); and a compressible component (230; para.29 & 34) disposed within the interior void (as seen in Fig.9A), the compressible component
including a first segment (i.e. 230 is a first segment, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant) tapering in a direction from a first end (i.e. wide bottom end of 230) located at an outer perimeter edge of the compressible component to a second end (i.e. top peak end of 230)(as seen in Fig.14C) and (ii) having a series of peaks (see annotated Figure below) and valleys (234,235) including a substantially V shape (as seen in Fig.7 & 14C).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Turner does not disclose the compressible component movable from a first configuration having a first shape to a second configuration having a second shape in response to fluid being removed from the interior void. However, Lee discloses a bladder (10a) with a compressible component (20a), the compressible component movable from a first configuration (as seen in Fig. 10A) having a first shape to a second configuration (as seen in Fig. 10B) having a second shape in response to fluid being removed from the interior void (Col.6, lines 35-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bladder of Turner such that it can be pressurized with air or depressurize, as taught by Lee, in order to provide the optimum level of cushioning and support to the user.
Regarding Claim 6, Turner discloses an adjustment element of Claim 1, wherein the second end (i.e. top peak end of 230) of the first segment is disposed at a central location of the compressible component (i.e. the top peak end of 230 is disposed at a central location, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant, as it is directionally situated centrally to the bottom end of 230).
Regarding Claim 10, Turner discloses an article of apparel incorporating the adjustment element of Claim 1 (para.23).
Regarding Claim 11, Turner discloses an adjustment element (Fig.14C) for an article of apparel, the adjustment element comprising: a bladder (210,220) forming an interior void (as seen in Fig.9A); and a compressible component (230; para.29 & 34) disposed within the interior void (as seen in Fig.9A) and including a first segment (i.e. 230 is a first segment, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant) having a series of peaks (see annotated Figure below) and valleys (234,235) including a substantially V shape (as seen in Fig.7 & 14C). Turner does not disclose the compressible component movable from a first configuration having a substantially planar profile to a second configuration having a curved profile in response to fluid being removed from the interior void. However, Lee discloses a bladder (10a) with a compressible component (20a), the compressible component movable from a first configuration having a substantially planar profile (as seen in Fig.10A) to a second configuration having a curved profile (as seen in Fig.10B) in response to fluid being removed from the interior void (Col.6, lines 35-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bladder and compressible component of Turner such that it can be pressurized with air or depressurize, as taught by Lee, in order to provide the optimum level of cushioning and support to the user.
Regarding Claim 12, Turner discloses an adjustment element of Claim 11, wherein the compressible component is formed from foam (para.34).
Regarding Claim 16, Turner discloses an adjustment element of Claim 11, wherein the first segment tapers in a direction from a first end (i.e. wide bottom end of 230) located at an outer perimeter edge of the compressible component to a second end (i.e. top peak end of 230)(as seen in Fig.14C).
Regarding Claim 20, Turner discloses an article of apparel incorporating the adjustment element of Claim 11 (para.23).
2. Claim(s) 4-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 2013/0025035) and Lee (US 6,080,037) in view of Reinhard (US 2007/0226881).
Regarding Claim 4, Turner and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Turner does not disclose wherein the peaks and valleys of the series of peaks and valleys converge from the first end of the first segment to the second end of the first segment to define the substantially V shape. Turner does not disclose wherein the peaks and valleys of the series of peaks and valleys converge from the first end of the first segment to the second end of the first segment to define the substantially V shape. However, Reinhard teaches a cushioning element having peaks (9) and valleys (8/7) converge from a first end of the first segment to a second end of the first segment to define the substantially V shape (para.24 & 26; as seen in Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embedded structure of Turner to have V-shaped segments that converge, as taught by Reinhard, in order to provide the optimum shape for conforming to a user’s body part in a comfortable way, so that a user can move comfortably.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Turner and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Turner does not disclose wherein the first segment includes a tiered configuration of articulation elements that are nested with one another. However, Reinhard teaches a cushioning element having a first segment including a tiered configuration of articulation elements (i.e. the V-shaped segments of 9 & 8/7 are articulation elements, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant) that are nested with one another (para.24 & 26; as seen in Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embedded structure of Turner to have a tiered configuration of articulation elements, as taught by Reinhard, in order to provide the optimum shape for conforming to a user’s body part in a comfortable way, so that a user can move comfortably.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Turner and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Turner does not disclose wherein the peaks and valleys of the series of peaks and valleys converge from the first end of the first segment to the second end of the first segment to define the substantially V shape. Turner does not disclose wherein the peaks and valleys of the series of peaks and valleys converge from the first end of the first segment to the second end of the first segment to define the substantially V shape. However, Reinhard teaches a cushioning element having peaks (9) and valleys (8/7) converge from a first end of the first segment to a second end of the first segment to define the substantially V shape (para.24 & 26; as seen in Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embedded structure of Turner to have V-shaped segments that converge, as taught by Reinhard, in order to provide the optimum shape for conforming to a user’s body part in a comfortable way, so that a user can move comfortably.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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, Alissa J. Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights