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
The amendments filed on 05/19/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with Claims 1 and 11 being newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hann (US 2005/0268488).
Regarding Claim 1, Hann teaches a sole structure (160) for an article of footwear (100), the sole structure comprising: a cushioning element (166) extending from a first end in a forefoot region of the sole structure to a second end including an upper lip (see annotated Fig.) in a heel region of the sole structure (fig. 3 shows the cushioning element (166) extending from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end including an upper lip in the heel region); an outsole (168) spaced apart from the cushioning element to define a gap (see annotated Fig.) between the cushioning element and the outsole and defining a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (Annotated fig. 3 shows the outsole (168) defining a ground engaging surface and being spaced from the midsole (166) to form a gap), the outsole extending from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end including a lower lip partially overlapped by the upper lip in the heel region (fig. 3 shows the outsole (168) extending from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end in the heel region, the second end including a lower lip being overlapped by the upper lip); and a cradle (180) disposed within the gap and defining an arcuate surface (see annotated Fig.) facing a posterior end of the sole structure (annotated fig. 3 shows the cradle (180) within the gap and defining an arcuate surface facing a posterior end of the sole), the second end (see annotated Fig.) of the cushioning element extending over the arcuate surface to define a first portion of a posterior surface of the sole structure (annotated fig. 3 shows the second end of the cushioning element (166) extending over the arcuate surface to define a first portion of the posterior surface of the sole).
Regarding Claim 2, Hann teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Hann further teaches wherein the second end (see annotated Fig.) of the outsole (168) extends over the arcuate surface to define a second portion of the posterior surface of the sole structure (annotated fig. 3 shows the second end of the outsole (168) extending over the arcuate surface to define a second portion of the posterior surface of the sole).
Regarding Claim 3, Hann teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Hann further teaches wherein the second end (see annotated Fig.) of the outsole (168) opposes the second end (see annotated Fig.) of the cushioning element (166) at the arcuate surface (Annotated fig. 3 shows the second ends of the outsole (168) and cushioning element (166) opposing one another at the arcuate surface).
Regarding Claim 4, Hann teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Hann further teaches wherein the second end (see annotated Fig.) of the outsole (168) abuts the second end (see annotated Fig.) of the cushioning element (166) along the arcuate surface (Annotated fig. 3 shows the second ends of the outsole (168) and cushioning element (166) abutting one another along the arcuate surface).
Regarding Claim 7, Hann teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Hann further teaches wherein the cradle (180) defines a receptacle (see annotated Fig.) extending from a medial side of the sole structure to a lateral side of the sole structure (Annotated fig. 3 shows the cradle defining a receptacle, figs. 38-42 show the cradle and therein the receptacle extending from a medial to a lateral side of the sole), the arcuate surface (see annotated Fig.) being disposed at a posterior end of the receptacle (annotated fig. 3 shows the arcuate surface being disposed at a posterior end of the receptacle).
Regarding Claim 10, Hann teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Hann further teaches wherein the cushioning element (166) and the outsole (168) cooperate to enclose the arcuate surface (see annotated Fig.) of the cradle (180) at the posterior end of the sole structure (annotated fig. 3 shows the cushioning element (166) and outsole (168) enclosing the arcuate surface of the cradle (180)).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
397
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Independent Claim 11, none of the prior art of record discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear comprising a cushioning element extending from a first end in a forefoot region to a second end in a heel region, an outsole spaced from the cushioning element and defining a gap between the cushioning element and the outsole, the outsole defining a ground engaging surface and extending from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end in the heel region, and a cradle disposed within the gap and defining an arcuate surface facing a posterior end of the sole, the second end of the outsole extending over the arcuate surface to define a first portion of a posterior surface of the sole structure
in combination with the second end of the outsole further being disposed partially between the second end of the cushioning element and the cradle.
The use of a cushioning element, an outsole, and a cradle in a sole structure is known in the art, but this feature along with the specific relationship between the second ends of the cushioning element and the outsole at the posterior end of the sole as claimed by the Applicant is novel.
Specifically, Prior art (both Hann US 2005/0268488 and Kilgore et al. US 5343639 individually) teaches a sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a cushioning element extending from a first end in a forefoot region of the sole structure to a second end in a heel region of the sole structure; an outsole spaced apart from the cushioning element to define a gap between the cushioning element and the outsole and defining a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure, the outsole extending from a first end in the forefoot region to a second end in the heel region; and a cradle disposed within the gap and defining an arcuate surface facing a posterior end of the sole structure, the second end of the outsole extending over the arcuate surface to define a first portion of a posterior surface of the sole structure.
However, none of the prior art alone or in combination discloses, teaches, or suggests wherein the second end of the outsole is disposed partially between the second end of the cushioning element and the cradle. To modify the prior art in the manner as disclosed would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the Applicant’s invention without any discloses, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant submits that neither Hann or Kilgore teach the cushioning element having an upper lip, the outsole having a lower lip, or the upper lip overlapping the lower lip. Examiner agrees that Kilgore does not teach the upper lip of the cushioning element overlapping the lower lip of the outsole. However, Examiner does not agree that Hann does not teach all of the limitations of independent Claim 1. As shown in the annotated figures and explained in the rejections above, there is clearly an upper lip, or edge, of the cushioning element that overlaps, or extends over, the lower lip/edge of the outsole. For at least these reasons, Claim 1 and the dependent Claims noted above are rejected over Hann.
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 HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 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, 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights