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 with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated claims 1-20 as reading upon the elected invention. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the mutually exclusive characteristics identified in the Restriction Requirement do not result in serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because several patentably distinct species having mutually exclusive characteristics were identified. There would be serious search and/or examination burden for these patentably distinct species because at least the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species, as identified in the Restriction Requirement, would require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example, searching for both the patentably distinct species A and B of the shanks having different shapes and relative widths along the length of the respective shanks would require different fields of search such as different search strategies or search queries utilizing different keywords. While the searches of the identified species may overlap, the overall search would be seriously burdensome because Examiner would need to search for each distinct invention or variation. Furthermore, the search is only part of the examination process, and MPEP § 803 states "[i]f the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden". The examination of the application would also be burdensome because Examiner would be required to apply art and rejections to claims (presently presented or added in future prosecution) directed towards each distinct and different species of invention.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on January 26, 2026, claim 7 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. An action on the merits follows.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“one or more openings that have polyurethane (PU) of the midsole body positioned therein” as recited in claim 7
“a portion of the multiple openings have material of the midsole body positioned therein” as recited in claim 10
“a second set of openings that have material of the midsole body positioned therein” as recited in claim 13
Examiner notes that for each of the above features, the drawings only appear to show the openings themselves and not the material positioned therein or how exactly said material would be positioned therein (e.g., an amount of material therein).
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7A appears to show an improper exploded view. The exploded view should include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts.
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.
Specification – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because at line 1, “An article of footwear is provided” is implied phraseology and should be removed.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because at [0001], it is suggested that reference to U.S. Application 17/450,973 be updated to reflect the granted patents status of the application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2, “an upper” should read “an upper of the article of footwear”
At lines 11-12, “extends […] and form” should read “extend […] and form”
Claim 4 is objected to because at line 1, “intersect” should read “intersect with one another”
Claim 8 is objected to because at line 3, “air injected PU” should read “air injected PU foam”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At lines 10-11, “extends […] and form” should read “extend […] and form”
At line 12, “an upper” should read “an upper of the article of footwear”
Claim 14 is objected to because at line 1, “intersect” should read “intersect with one another”
Claim 16 is objected to because at lines 3-4, “air injected PU” should read “air injected PU foam”
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2, “an upper” should read “an upper of the article of footwear”
At lines 11-12, “extends […] and form” should read “extend […] and form”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side” at lines 4-5. It is unclear to what structure the upper and lower sides are meant to belong. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side of the heel cushion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “materials that have a greater compliance than the midsole body” at lines 7-8. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to compare some unrecited material of the midsole body to that of the material of the heel cushion, or if some other comparison is being attempted. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “materials that have a greater compliance than a material of the midsole body”. Should the suggested language be incorporated, “material” in claim 10 should further be updated. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a central region” at line 2. It is unclear to what structure the central region is meant to belong. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a central region of the heel cushion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “therein” at line 3. As several structures were previously introduced in the claim, it is unclear to what structure “therein” is meant to refer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “in the one or more openings of the multiple openings”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “therein” at line 2. As several structures were previously introduced in the claim, it is unclear to what structure “therein” is meant to refer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “in the portion of the multiple openings”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “A sole assembly in an article of footwear, comprising:” at line 1. As several structures were previously introduced in the claim, it is unclear which of said structures is meant to comprise the subsequent limitations. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “A sole assembly in an article of footwear, the sole assembly comprising:”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side” at lines 3-4. It is unclear to what structure the upper and lower sides are meant to belong. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side of the heel cushion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “therein” at line 2. As several structures were previously introduced in the claim, it is unclear to what structure “therein” is meant to refer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “in the second set of openings”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a central region” at line 2. It is unclear to what structure the central region is meant to belong. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a central region of the heel cushion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 18 further recites the limitation “openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side” at lines 4-5. It is unclear to what structure the upper and lower sides are meant to belong. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side of the heel cushion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 18 further recites the limitation “materials that have a greater compliance than the midsole body” at lines 7-8. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to compare some unrecited material of the midsole body to that of the material of the heel cushion, or if some other comparison is being attempted. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “materials that have a greater compliance than a material of the midsole body”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 18 further recites the limitation “the cushion” at line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the heel cushion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0251122 to Snow et al. (hereinafter, “Snow”), in view of US 2019/0098960 to Weisskopf et al. (hereinafter, “Weisskopf”), in view of US 2014/0259744 to Cooper (hereinafter, “Cooper”), and in view of US 2017/0202303 to Shepherd et al. (hereinafter, “Shepherd”).
Regarding claim 1, Snow teaches an article of footwear (See Snow, Fig. 1; abstract), comprising: a midsole body at least partially positioned vertically below an upper (See Snow, Figs. 1 and 21-22; midsole (103) positioned below upper (101)); a heel cushion at least partially surrounded by the midsole body (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; heel section (106) and heel chamber (2110) together forming a heel cushion and at least partially surrounded by midsole (103)); and a shank including: an end section that is positioned vertically above the heel cushion (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; heel cushion (106, 2110) is mechanically engaged with a first end of shank member (105) positioned above the heel cushion; shank member (105) appears to include holes at either end for interfacing with sole elements; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
That said, although Snow shows mechanical engagement between the heel cushion and the shank at an end of the shank, Snow is silent to wherein the heel cushion includes multiple openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side and one or more connectors that extends vertically downward from the end section and form a snap-fit interface with the multiple openings in the heel cushion.
However, Weisskopf, in a related sole structure art, is directed to an article of footwear and structures for joining sole components (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A; abstract). More specifically, Weisskopf teaches a sole component having multiple openings that extend through the sole component from an upper side to a lower side (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A, 4B; multiple openings (14) through component (12) which can have the shape as depicted in Fig. 4B) and one or more connectors that extends vertically downward from another sole component and form a snap-fit interface with the multiple openings in the sole component (See Weisskopf, Fig. 1A; multiple connectors of extending downward from component (11) and forming snap-fit with openings (14)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to apply the multiple openings and corresponding connectors system disclosed by Weisskopf as the connection mechanism between the heel cushion and shank of Snow in order to form a strong, bonded connection between the sole components (See Weisskopf, [0119]). As a result of the modification, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, as discussed above) would further teach the multiple openings being on the heel cushion (i.e., the lower sole component) and the one or more connectors extending from the end section of the shank (i.e., the upper sole component).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, as discussed above) is silent to wherein multiple recesses extend across the heel cushion.
However, Cooper, in a related sole structure art, is directed to a shoe midsole having integrated lines or grooves for improving flexibility (See Cooper, Fig. 4; abstract). More specifically, Cooper teaches wherein multiple recesses extend across the heel cushion (See Cooper, Fig. 4; lines (410, 412, 414) extending across heel of cushioning layer (400) in heel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the heel region lines disclosed by Cooper to the bottom of the heel cushion of the modified article of footwear of Snow in order to provide better flexibility in different directions and reduced weight across in the sole (See Cooper, [0002], [0004], [0028]).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf and Cooper, as discussed above) is silent to wherein the heel cushion is constructed out of one or more materials that have a greater compliance than the midsole body.
However, Shepherd, in a related sole structure art, is directed to a shoe having a layered sole structure including a lower sole member, a heel member, a shank member, a heel cushion, and a foot pad, and different hardness values among the sole elements (See Shepherd, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Shepherd teaches wherein the heel cushion is constructed out of one or more materials that have a greater compliance than the midsole body (See Shepherd, Fig. 4; lower sole member (28), i.e., a midsole, is formed of a polyurethane having a durometer hardness in the range of 70-75 on a Shore A hardness scale, and heel cushion (34) is formed of a polyurethane having a durometer hardness in the range of 60-65 on a Shore A hardness scale, i.e., less than that of the midsole; [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the midsole and heel cushion of the modified article of footwear of Snow from the harder polyurethane material and the softer polyurethane material, respectively, disclosed by Shepherd for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, using a softer cushioning material to provide comfortable support beneath a wearer’s heel as preferred by the wearer (See Shepherd, [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the multiple openings each have multiple sections that vary in diameter (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A and 4B; relied upon openings having shape depicted in Fig. 4B have sections that vary in diameter).
Regarding claim 3, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the multiple openings are positioned in front of a midline of the heel cushion (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; the openings of Weisskopf would be positioned in front of a midline of heel cushion (106, 2110) of Snow so as to correspond with first end of shank (105) attached thereto in the modified article of footwear).
Regarding claim 4, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the multiple recesses intersect at a central region to form a symmetric arrangement (See Cooper, Fig. 4; lines (410, 412, 414) as applied in the modified article of footwear would intersect at a central region and form a symmetric arrangement; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 5, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4 above) further teaches wherein at least one of the multiple recesses extends across the multiple openings (See Cooper, Fig. 4; at least some of lines (410, 412, 414) would extend across at least some of the openings as applied in the modified article of footwear).
Regarding claim 6, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the end section has a greater width than an intermediate section of the shank (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; end sections of shank (105) have a greater width than an intermediate section).
Regarding claim 9, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the shank is constructed out of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; shank (105) may be made from TPU; [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Snow teaches a sole assembly in an article of footwear (See Snow, Figs. 1 and 21-22; abstract), comprising: a heel cushion at least partially surrounded by a midsole body (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; heel section (106) and heel chamber (2110) together forming a heel cushion and at least partially surrounded by midsole (103)); a shank including: a first end section that is positioned vertically above the heel cushion (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; heel cushion (106, 2110) is mechanically engaged with a first end of shank member (105) positioned above the heel cushion; shank member (105) appears to include holes at either end for interfacing with sole elements; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); and wherein the midsole body is positioned below an upper (See Snow, Figs. 1 and 21-22; midsole (103) positioned below upper (101)).
That said, although Snow shows mechanical engagement between the heel cushion and the shank at an end of the shank, Snow is silent to wherein the heel cushion includes a first set of openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side and one or more connectors that extends vertically downward from the first end section and form a snap-fit interface with the first set of openings in the heel cushion.
However, Weisskopf, in a related sole structure art, is directed to an article of footwear and structures for joining sole components (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A; abstract). More specifically, Weisskopf teaches a sole component having a first set of openings that extend through the sole component from an upper side to a lower side (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A, 4B; multiple openings (14) through component (12) which can have the shape as depicted in Fig. 4B) and one or more connectors that extends vertically downward from another sole component and form a snap-fit interface with the first set of openings (See Weisskopf, Fig. 1A; multiple connectors of extending downward from component (11) and forming snap-fit with openings (14)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to apply the multiple openings and corresponding connectors system disclosed by Weisskopf as the connection mechanism between the heel cushion and shank of Snow in order to form a strong, bonded connection between the sole components (See Weisskopf, [0119]). As a result of the modification, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, as discussed above) would further teach the multiple openings being on the heel cushion (i.e., the lower sole component) and the one or more connectors extending from the end section of the shank (i.e., the upper sole component).
That said, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, as discussed above) is silent to wherein multiple recesses extend across the heel cushion.
However, Cooper, in a related sole structure art, is directed to a shoe midsole having integrated lines or grooves for improving flexibility (See Cooper, Fig. 4; abstract). More specifically, Cooper teaches wherein multiple recesses extend across the heel cushion (See Cooper, Fig. 4; lines (410, 412, 414) extending across heel of cushioning layer (400) in heel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the heel region lines disclosed by Cooper to the bottom of the heel cushion of the modified sole assembly of Snow in order to provide better flexibility in different directions and reduced weight across in the sole (See Cooper, [0002], [0004], [0028]).
That said, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf and Cooper, as discussed above) is silent to wherein the heel cushion and the midsole body are constructed out of different materials.
However, Shepherd, in a related sole structure art, is directed to a shoe having a layered sole structure including a lower sole member, a heel member, a shank member, a heel cushion, and a foot pad, and different hardness values among the sole elements (See Shepherd, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Shepherd teaches wherein the heel cushion and the midsole body are constructed out of different materials (See Shepherd, Fig. 4; lower sole member (28), i.e., a midsole, is formed of a polyurethane having a durometer hardness in the range of 70-75 on a Shore A hardness scale, and heel cushion (34) is formed of a polyurethane having a durometer hardness in the range of 60-65 on a Shore A hardness scale, i.e., less than that of the midsole; [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the midsole and heel cushion of the modified sole assembly of Snow from the harder polyurethane material and the softer polyurethane material, respectively, disclosed by Shepherd for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, using a softer cushioning material to provide comfortable support beneath a wearer’s heel as preferred by the wearer (See Shepherd, [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein the first set of openings each include an upper section with a larger diameter than a lower section (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A and 4B; relied upon openings having shape depicted in Fig. 4B have an upper section (41) having a larger diameter than a lower section (18)).
Regarding claim 14, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein the multiple recesses intersect at a central region (See Cooper, Fig. 4; lines (410, 412, 414) as applied in the modified sole assembly would intersect at a central region and form a symmetric arrangement; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 15, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claims 11 and 14 above) further teaches wherein: the multiple recesses form a symmetric arrangement; and at least one of the multiple recesses extends across the first set of openings (See Cooper, Fig. 4; at least some of lines (410, 412, 414) would extend across at least some of the openings as applied in the modified sole assembly).
Regarding claim 17, although Snow shows mechanical engagement between the heel cushion and the shank at a front, i.e., second, end of the shank, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) is silent to wherein the shank includes a second end section that includes multiple openings that receive midsole material.
However, Shepherd further teaches wherein the shank includes a second end section that includes multiple openings that receive midsole material (See Shepherd, Fig. 3; shank (32) includes openings (80) at front end into which midsole material is received; [0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form holes in the front end of the shank of the modified sole assembly of Snow that received the surrounding midsole material during assembly as disclosed by Shepherd in order securely join the shank within the midsole material and prevent undesired separation (See Shepherd, [0026]).
Claims 7, 10, and 13, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow, in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd (as applied to claims 1 and 6 above with respect to claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above with respect to claim 10, and as applied to claim 11 above with respect to claim 13), and further in view of US 2013/0061495 to Lubart (hereinafter, “Lubart”).
Regarding claim 7, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches the midsole body being polyurethane (PU) (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; midsole (103) is formed of polyurethane; [0048]).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow is silent to wherein the multiple openings include one or more openings that the midsole body positioned therein.
However, Lubart, in a related footwear art, is directed to a shoe construction having a heel cushion and shank (See Lubart, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Lubart teaches wherein the multiple openings include one or more openings that the midsole body positioned therein (See Lubart, Figs. 1-4; heel cushion member (9) includes columns (44) forming openings through the thickness of the heel cushion; columns (44) are positioned both in front of and behind a midline of the heel cushion member (9); when the shoe is assembled, columns (44) are filled with surrounding midsole (5) material during molding; bottom (5), i.e., the midsole, is positioned above outsole (6); [0020]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the columns disclosed by Lubart in the heel cushion of the modified article of footwear of Snow, wherein the columns are filled with surrounding midsole material during molding, for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, restricting unwanted movement and reducing instability of the cushion (See Lubart, [0004], [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein a portion of the multiple openings have material of the midsole body positioned therein.
However, Lubart, in a related footwear art, is directed to a shoe construction having a heel cushion and shank (See Lubart, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Lubart teaches wherein a portion of the multiple openings have material of the midsole body positioned therein (See Lubart, Figs. 1-4; heel cushion member (9) includes columns (44) forming openings through the thickness of the heel cushion; columns (44) are positioned both in front of and behind a midline of the heel cushion member (9); when the shoe is assembled, columns (44) are filled with surrounding midsole (5) material during molding; bottom (5), i.e., the midsole, is positioned above outsole (6); [0020]; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the columns disclosed by Lubart in the heel cushion of the modified article of footwear of Snow, wherein the columns are filled with surrounding midsole material during molding, for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, restricting unwanted movement and reducing instability of the cushion (See Lubart, [0004], [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) is silent to wherein the heel cushion includes a second set of openings that have material of the midsole body positioned therein.
However, Lubart, in a related footwear art, is directed to a shoe construction having a heel cushion and shank (See Lubart, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Lubart teaches wherein the heel cushion includes a second set of openings that have material of the midsole body positioned therein (See Lubart, Figs. 1-4; heel cushion member (9) includes columns (44) forming openings through the thickness of the heel cushion; columns (44) are positioned both in front of and behind a midline of the heel cushion member (9); when the shoe is assembled, columns (44) are filled with surrounding midsole (5) material during molding; bottom (5), i.e., the midsole, is positioned above outsole (6); [0020]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the columns disclosed by Lubart in the heel cushion of the modified sole assembly of Snow, wherein the columns are filled with surrounding midsole material during molding, for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, restricting unwanted movement and reducing instability of the cushion (See Lubart, [0004], [0020]).
Claims 8 and 16, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow, in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd (as applied to claim 1 above with respect to claim 8, and as applied to claim 11 above with respect to claim 16), and further in view of US 2012/0060395 to Blevens et al. (hereinafter, “Blevens”).
Regarding claim 8, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the midsole body is constructed out of a PU material (midsole (103) is formed from a poured and cured polyurethane; See Snow, [0048]).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow is silent to the heel cushion is constructed out of an air injected polyurethane (PU) foam.
However, Blevens, in a related sole structure art, is directed to an article of footwear having a heel support member (See Blevens, Figs. 1-10; abstract). More specifically, Blevens teaches the heel cushion is constructed out of an air injected polyurethane (PU) foam (See Blevens, Fig. 10; heel support member (402) is formed from a polyurethane foam; [0067]; Examiner notes that “air injected” is a product-by-process limitation, and as long as the heel cushion is made of polyurethane foam, the limitation will be considered met).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form at least a portion of the heel cushion of modified article of footwear of Snow from the foam material disclosed by Blevens for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing a shock reducing and energy absorbing material underneath a wearer’s heel (See Blevens, [0067]). As a result of the modification, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, Shepherd, and Blevens, as discussed above) would further teach the midsole PU material being denser than the air injected PU foam (poured PU material of Snow would be denser than PU foam of Blevens).
Regarding claim 16, the modified sole assembly of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein: the midsole body is constructed out of a PU material (midsole (103) is formed from a poured and cured polyurethane; See Snow, [0048]); and the shank is constructed out of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; shank (105) may be made from TPU; [0046]).
That said, the modified sole assembly of Snow is silent to the heel cushion is constructed out of an air injected polyurethane (PU) foam.
However, Blevens, in a related sole structure art, is directed to an article of footwear having a heel support member (See Blevens, Figs. 1-10; abstract). More specifically, Blevens teaches the heel cushion is constructed out of an air injected polyurethane (PU) foam (See Blevens, Fig. 10; heel support member (402) is formed from a polyurethane foam; [0067]; Examiner notes that “air injected” is a product-by-process limitation, and as long as the heel cushion is made of polyurethane foam, the limitation will be considered met).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form at least a portion of the heel cushion of modified sole assembly of Snow from the foam material disclosed by Blevens for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing a shock reducing and energy absorbing material underneath a wearer’s heel (See Blevens, [0067]). As a result of the modification, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, Shepherd, and Blevens, as discussed above) would further teach the midsole PU material having a greater denser than the air injected PU foam (poured PU material of Snow would be denser than PU foam of Blevens).
Claims 18-20, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow, in view of Weisskopf, in view of Cooper, in view of Shepherd, and in view of USPN 5,353,526 to Foley et al. (hereinafter, “Foley”).
Regarding claim 18, Snow teaches an article of footwear (See Snow, Fig. 1; abstract), comprising: a midsole body at least partially positioned vertically below an upper (See Snow, Figs. 1 and 21-22; midsole (103) positioned below upper (101)); a heel cushion at least partially surrounded by the midsole body (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; heel section (106) and heel chamber (2110) together forming a heel cushion and at least partially surrounded by midsole (103)); a shank including: an end section that is positioned vertically above the heel cushion (See Snow, Figs. 21-22; heel cushion (106, 2110) is mechanically engaged with a first end of shank member (105) positioned above the heel cushion; shank member (105) appears to include holes at either end for interfacing with sole elements; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
That said, although Snow shows mechanical engagement between the heel cushion and the shank at an end of the shank, Snow is silent to wherein the heel cushion includes multiple openings that extend through the heel cushion from an upper side to a lower side and one or more connectors that extends vertically downward from the end section and form a snap-fit interface with the multiple openings in the heel cushion.
However, Weisskopf, in a related sole structure art, is directed to an article of footwear and structures for joining sole components (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A; abstract). More specifically, Weisskopf teaches a sole component having multiple openings that extend through the sole component from an upper side to a lower side (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A, 4B; multiple openings (14) through component (12) which can have the shape as depicted in Fig. 4B) and one or more connectors that extends vertically downward from another sole component and form a snap-fit interface with the multiple openings in the sole component (See Weisskopf, Fig. 1A; multiple connectors of extending downward from component (11) and forming snap-fit with openings (14)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to apply the multiple openings and corresponding connectors system disclosed by Weisskopf as the connection mechanism between the heel cushion and shank of Snow in order to form a strong, bonded connection between the sole components (See Weisskopf, [0119]). As a result of the modification, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, as discussed above) would further teach the multiple openings being on the heel cushion (i.e., the lower sole component) and the one or more connectors extending from the end section of the shank (i.e., the upper sole component).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, as discussed above) is silent to wherein multiple recesses extend across the heel cushion.
However, Cooper, in a related sole structure art, is directed to a shoe midsole having integrated lines or grooves for improving flexibility (See Cooper, Fig. 4; abstract). More specifically, Cooper teaches wherein multiple recesses extend across the heel cushion (See Cooper, Fig. 4; lines (410, 412, 414) extending across heel of cushioning layer (400) in heel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the heel region lines disclosed by Cooper to the bottom of the heel cushion of the modified article of footwear of Snow in order to provide better flexibility in different directions and reduced weight across in the sole (See Cooper, [0002], [0004], [0028]).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf and Cooper, as discussed above) is silent to wherein the heel cushion is constructed out of one or more materials that have a greater compliance than the midsole body.
However, Shepherd, in a related sole structure art, is directed to a shoe having a layered sole structure including a lower sole member, a heel member, a shank member, a heel cushion, and a foot pad, and different hardness values among the sole elements (See Shepherd, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Shepherd teaches wherein the heel cushion is constructed out of one or more materials that have a greater compliance than the midsole body (See Shepherd, Fig. 4; lower sole member (28), i.e., a midsole, is formed of a polyurethane having a durometer hardness in the range of 70-75 on a Shore A hardness scale, and heel cushion (34) is formed of a polyurethane having a durometer hardness in the range of 60-65 on a Shore A hardness scale, i.e., less than that of the midsole; [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the midsole and heel cushion of the modified article of footwear of Snow from the harder polyurethane material and the softer polyurethane material, respectively, disclosed by Shepherd for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, using a softer cushioning material to provide comfortable support beneath a wearer’s heel as preferred by the wearer (See Shepherd, [0023]).
That said, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, and Shepherd, as discussed above) is silent to wherein the midsole body includes one or more openings that extend to a side surface of the cushion.
However, Foley, in a related shoe sole structure art, is directed to a heel stabilizer for the midsole of a shock absorbing sole in footwear (See Foley, Figs. 1 & 9; abstract). More specifically, Foley teaches wherein the midsole body includes one or more openings that extend to a side surface of the cushion.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the inward-extending cells disclosed by Foley on the lateral and medial sides of the sole of the modified article of footwear of Snow for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, for aesthetic purposes and to reduce the weight of the article of footwear overall while retaining cushioning and stability (See Foley, Col. 3, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 19, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, Shepherd, and Foley, as discussed with respect to claim 18 above) further teaches wherein the midsole body includes a support extension that vertically extends across the one or more openings in the midsole body (See Foley Figs. 8-9; cells (88, 89) form a plurality of openings wherein any two adjacent cells form a single opening having a wall, i.e., a support extension, bridging the single opening of the two adjacent cells).
Regarding claim 20, the modified article of footwear of Snow (i.e., Snow in view of Weisskopf, Cooper, Shepherd, and Foley, as discussed with respect to claims 18-19 above) further teaches wherein the multiple openings each have multiple sections that vary in diameter (See Weisskopf, Figs. 1A and 4B; relied upon openings having shape depicted in Fig. 4B have sections that vary in diameter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. USPN 1,522,478 to Abramowitz; and USPN 2,074,050 to Dwyer are directed to articles of footwear having recesses in a heel cushioning region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732