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, Species 1, and Species I in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and are presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 1, the claim recites the limitation “a first fluid-filled camber abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending over the aperture at the second opening”. This limitation is confusing because, firstly, the first fluid-filled chamber abuts the second (bottom) surface of the midsole, so it appears that it should be under the aperture. An alternate interpretation could be that the term “over” is referring to how the first fluid-filled chamber spans the aperture (i.e., extends from one end of the aperture to another); however, this interpretation of claim 1 appears to not be correct because this would be essentially the same as claim 8, which recites “the first fluid-filled chamber extends over the entire second opening”. Therefore, it is unclear what the term “over” means in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture”. It is unclear what is meant by “approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture” because the aperture in the figures (see figures 4 and 5 showing that the aperture appears in an area of the midsole that is recessed) appears to be located at a very thinned/recessed area of the midsole, thus the thickness of the midsole at/directly adjacent to the aperture therefore appears to be much thinner than then second fluid-filled chamber. The term “approximately” also introduces confusion because it is not clear how closely the thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber needs to approximate the thickness of the midsole at the aperture in order to read on the claim. For instance, would Applicant consider the illustrated discrepancy in thickness acceptable to satisfy the “approximately equal” limitation insofar as required by the claim?
PNG
media_image1.png
620
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4 of the instant application showing what appears to be the thickness of the midsole AT the aperture as recited in the claim
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “a first fluid-filled camber abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending over the aperture at the second opening”. This limitation is confusing because, firstly, the first fluid-filled chamber abuts the second (bottom) surface of the midsole, so it appears that it should be under the aperture. An alternate interpretation could be that the term “over” is referring to how the first fluid-filled chamber spans the aperture (i.e., extends from one end of the aperture to another); however, this interpretation of claim 11 appears to not be correct because would be essentially the same as claim 20, which recites “the first fluid-filled chamber extends over the entire second opening”. Therefore, it is unclear what the term “over” means in claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture”. It is unclear what is meant by “approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture” because the aperture in the figures (see figures 4 and 5 showing that the aperture appears in an area of the midsole that is recessed; see annotated figure 4 provided above with the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 7) appears to be located at a very thinned/recessed area of the midsole, thus the thickness of the midsole at/directly adjacent to the aperture therefore appears to be much thinner than then second fluid-filled chamber. The term “approximately” also introduces confusion because it is not clear how closely the thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber needs to approximate the thickness of the midsole at the aperture in order to read on the claim. For instance, would Applicant consider the illustrated discrepancy in thickness acceptable to satisfy the “approximately equal” limitation insofar as required by the claim?
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) 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruce (US 2014/0075779).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Bruce discloses: A sole structure for an article of footwear including an upper (302), the sole structure comprising: a midsole (140) including a first surface opposing the upper (top surface of midsole 140), a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (bottom surface of midsole 140), and an aperture (140b) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (see figure 1A, there is a first opening at the top surface of the midsole and a second opening at the bottom surface of the midsole because the aperture 140b extends all the way through the thickness of the midsole); a first fluid-filled chamber (bottom bladder of stacked fluid filled bladders 120) abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending over the aperture at the second opening (see figure 2C; “portions of the fluid-filled bladder edge 220E extend to and even contact portions of the edge 146 of the midsole component 140 within the opening area 140b” paragraph 65); and a strobel attached to the upper (see Fig. 3D) and extending into the aperture at the first opening (150 and upper bladder of the stacked fluid filled bladders 120; “the bottom surface of the rigid plate component 150 may be fixed […] to the top surfaces 120S and 130S of the fluid-filled bladder systems 120, 130, e.g., by cements or adhesives, by mechanical connectors, or the like” paragraph 53), the strobel opposing the first fluid-filled chamber at the aperture (the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120 opposes the lower bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders at the aperture; see figure 1A, 2C).
Regarding claim 3, Bruce discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the strobel includes a second fluid-filled chamber (as described in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, the strobel includes plate 150 and the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120).
Regarding claim 4, Bruce discloses: The sole structure of Claim 3, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber extends into the aperture at the first opening (the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120 extends into the aperture at the first opening; see figures 1A, 2C).
Regarding claim 5, Bruce discloses: The sole structure of Claim 4, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber abuts the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120 abut each other proximate (near) the second opening; see figure 2C; ”two stacked fluid-filled bladders located at the rearfoot recessed area 114 (vertically stacked and vertically aligned)” paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 6, Bruce discloses: The sole structure of Claim 4, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is attached to the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (“the two stacked fluid-filled bladders of the system 120 may be fixed together, e.g., using cements or adhesives” paragraph 51; see figure 2C).
Regarding claim 8, Bruce discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber extends over the entire second opening (“portions of the fluid-filled bladder edge 220E extend to and even contact portions of the edge 146 of the midsole component within the opening area 140b” paragraph 65; see figure 2C).
Regarding claim 9, Bruce discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the aperture is asymmetric (see figure 1B showing the aperture 140b is asymmetric as the top half and bottom half are not the same).
Regarding claim 10, Bruce discloses: An article of footwear (300; “article of footwear 300 including a sole structure 100 like those described above in conjunction with FIGS. 1A through 2C” paragraph 66) incorporating the sole structure of Claim 1 (see 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood by Examiner, Bruce discloses: An article of footwear comprising: an upper (302); a strobel attached to the upper (150 and upper bladder of the stacked fluid filled bladders 120; “the bottom surface of the rigid plate component 150 may be fixed […] to the top surfaces 120S and 130S of the fluid-filled bladder systems 120, 130, e.g., by cements or adhesives, by mechanical connectors, or the like” paragraph 53; “glueing or otherwise securing the upper 203 and strobel 310 to […] the rigid plate component 150 (e.g., to its top sur face)” paragraph 68; see figure 3C/3D showing how the upper 302 is attached to the plate 150); a midsole (140) including a first surface opposing the upper (top surface of midsole 140), a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (bottom surface of midsole 140), and an aperture (140b) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (see figure 1A, there is a first opening at the top surface of the midsole and a second opening at the bottom surface of the midsole because the aperture 140b extends all the way through the thickness of the midsole); and a first fluid-filled chamber (bottom bladder of stacked fluid filled bladders 120) abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending over the aperture at the second opening (see figure 2C; “portions of the fluid-filled bladder edge 220E extend to and even contact portions of the edge 146 of the midsole component 140 within the opening area 140b” paragraph 65), the first fluid-filled chamber in contact with the strobel at the second opening (the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120 is in contact with the lower bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders at the aperture; see figure 1A, 2C).
Regarding claim 13, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 11, wherein the strobel includes a second fluid- filled chamber (as described in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 11 above, the strobel includes plate 150 and the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120).
Regarding claim 14, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 13, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber extends into the aperture at the first opening (the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120 extends into the aperture at the first opening; see figures 1A, 2C).
Regarding claim 15, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber abuts the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (the stacked fluid-filled bladders 120 abut each other proximate (near) the second opening; see figure 2C; ”two stacked fluid-filled bladders located at the rearfoot recessed area 114 (vertically stacked and vertically aligned)” paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 16, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is attached to the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (“the two stacked fluid-filled bladders of the system 120 may be fixed together, e.g., using cements or adhesives” paragraph 51; see figure 2C).
Regarding claim 18, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein the strobel includes a web area surrounding the second fluid-filled chamber (area of 150 that is outside the perimeter of the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladder is considered a web area insofar as claimed because it does not contain fluid).
Regarding claim 19, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 18, wherein the web area is attached to the upper (“glueing or otherwise securing the upper 203 and strobel 310 to […] the rigid plate component 150 (e.g., to its top sur face)” paragraph 68; see figure 3C/3D showing how the upper 302 is attached to the plate 150)
Regarding claim 20, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 11, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber extends over the entire second opening (“portions of the fluid-filled bladder edge 220E extend to and even contact portions of the edge 146 of the midsole component within the opening area 140b” paragraph 65; see figure 2C).
For the rejections of claims 2 and 12, claims 1 and 11 have been remapped as described below:
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Bruce discloses: A sole structure for an article of footwear including an upper (302), the sole structure comprising: a midsole (140) including a first surface opposing the upper (top surface of midsole 140), a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (bottom surface of midsole 140), and an aperture (140a) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (see figure 1A, there is a first opening at the top surface of the midsole and a second opening at the bottom surface of the midsole because the aperture 140a extends all the way through the thickness of the midsole); a first fluid-filled chamber (“one or more of the fluid-filled bladder systems may constitute two or more fluid-filled bladders located within their respective openings and/or receptacle areas (e.g., two or more stacked fluid-filled bladders)” paragraph 29, therefore fluid-filled blader system 130 can constitute two stacked fluid-filled bladders (though it is not specifically illustrated in the embodiments shown in the figures); the first fluid-filled chamber is therefore the bottom bladder of the two stacked fluid-filled bladders) abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending over the aperture at the second opening (see figure 2C; “portions of the fluid-filled bladder edge 220E extend to and even contact portions of the edge 146 of the midsole component 140 within the opening area 140b (a similar side edge construction and contact between bladder edges and opening edge 144 could be used in the forefoot opening 140a if desired)” paragraph 65); and a strobel attached to the upper and extending into the aperture at the first opening (150 and upper bladder of the stacked fluid filled bladders 130; “the bottom surface of the rigid plate component 150 may be fixed […] to the top surfaces 120S and 130S of the fluid-filled bladder systems 120, 130, e.g., by cements or adhesives, by mechanical connectors, or the like” paragraph 53), the strobel opposing the first fluid-filled chamber at the aperture (the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 130 opposes the lower bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders at the aperture; see figure 1A, 2C).
Regarding claim 2, The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the aperture is disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure (aperture 140a is in the forefoot region; see figure 1A).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood by Examiner, Bruce discloses: An article of footwear comprising: an upper (302); a strobel attached to the upper (150 and upper bladder of the stacked fluid filled bladders 120; “the bottom surface of the rigid plate component 150 may be fixed […] to the top surfaces 120S and 130S of the fluid-filled bladder systems 120, 130, e.g., by cements or adhesives, by mechanical connectors, or the like” paragraph 53; “glueing or otherwise securing the upper 203 and strobel 310 to […] the rigid plate component 150 (e.g., to its top sur face)” paragraph 68; see figure 3C/3D showing how the upper 302 is attached to the plate 150); a midsole (140) including a first surface opposing the upper (top surface of midsole 140), a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (bottom surface of midsole 140), and an aperture (140a) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (see figure 1A, there is a first opening at the top surface of the midsole and a second opening at the bottom surface of the midsole because the aperture 140a extends all the way through the thickness of the midsole); and a first fluid-filled chamber (“one or more of the fluid-filled bladder systems may constitute two or more fluid-filled bladders located within their respective openings and/or receptacle areas (e.g., two or more stacked fluid-filled bladders)” paragraph 29, therefore fluid-filled blader system 130 can constitute two stacked fluid-filled bladders (though it is not specifically illustrated in the embodiments shown in the figures); the first fluid-filled chamber is therefore the bottom bladder of the two stacked fluid-filled bladders) abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending over the aperture at the second opening (see figure 2C; “portions of the fluid-filled bladder edge 220E extend to and even contact portions of the edge 146 of the midsole component 140 within the opening area 140b (a similar side edge construction and contact between bladder edges and opening edge 144 could be used in the forefoot opening 140a if desired)” paragraph 65), the first fluid-filled chamber in contact with the strobel at the second opening (the upper bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders 130 is in contact with the lower bladder of the stacked fluid-filled bladders at the aperture; see figure 1A, 2C).
Regarding claim 12, Bruce discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 11, wherein the aperture is disposed in a forefoot region of the midsole (aperture 140a is in the forefoot region; see figure 1A).
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) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Schindler (US 2008/0184595).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by Examiner, Bruce does not explicitly disclose: The sole structure of Claim 4, wherein a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture.
However, Schindler teaches a pair of stacked fluid-filled bladders (33, made up of first chamber 40 and second chamber 50) that have an interlocking configuration (“as generally depicted in FIGS. 3 and 5, projections 43 respectively extend into depressions 54, and projections 53 respectively extend into depressions 44. Lower surface 42 and upper surface 52 form, therefore, oppositely-contoured surfaces that interlock or otherwise mate to join chambers 40 and 50 to each other” paragraph 40) such that both of the fluid-filled chambers have a thickness (see figure 3) that is approximately equal to the thickness of the surrounding midsole (see figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
570
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 of Schindler showing that the thickness of the first bladder, second bladder, and midsole are approximately equal
Schindler teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with fluid-filled bladders. 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 stacked bladders of Bruce with an interlocking configuration as taught by Schindler in order to improve the cushioning response of the fluid-filled bladder system by producing “a relatively large deflection during initial stages of compression” and then “as the compression of chambers 40 and 50 increases, however, the stiffness of pneumatic component 33 increases in a corresponding manner” (Schindler, paragraph 45), which will lead to improved comfort and support for the wearer.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by Examiner, Bruce does not explicitly disclose: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture.
However, Schindler teaches a pair of stacked fluid-filled bladders (33, made up of first chamber 40 and second chamber 50) that have an interlocking configuration (“as generally depicted in FIGS. 3 and 5, projections 43 respectively extend into depressions 54, and projections 53 respectively extend into depressions 44. Lower surface 42 and upper surface 52 form, therefore, oppositely-contoured surfaces that interlock or otherwise mate to join chambers 40 and 50 to each other” paragraph 40) such that both of the fluid-filled chambers have a thickness (see figure 3) that is approximately equal to the thickness of the surrounding midsole (see figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 7 above).
Schindler teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with fluid-filled bladders. 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 stacked bladders of Bruce with an interlocking configuration as taught by Schindler in order to improve the cushioning response of the fluid-filled bladder system by producing “a relatively large deflection during initial stages of compression” and then “as the compression of chambers 40 and 50 increases, however, the stiffness of pneumatic component 33 increases in a corresponding manner” (Schindler, paragraph 45), which will lead to improved comfort and support for the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Auyang (US 2019/0365039) and Aslani (US 2021/0298419) teach strobels with integrated fluid-filled 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