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 06/26/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with Claims 1, 5-7, and 11 being newly amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 04/08/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the top surface of the chassis opposes the upper” should read “the top surface of the chassis is configured to oppose the upper” as the upper is not positively recited in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-8, 10-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schindler et al. (US 2009/0151196).
Regarding Claim 1, Schindler et al. teaches a sole structure (30a) for an article of footwear (10) having an upper (20) (paragraph [0066] teaches “sole structure 30a may be utilized with upper 20 to form footwear 10”), the sole structure comprising: a fluid-filled chamber (50a) including a perimeter chamber (55a) and an interior chamber (56a) at least partially surrounded by the perimeter chamber (fig. 18 shows the perimeter chamber (55a) at least partially surrounding the interior chamber (56a)) and spaced apart from the perimeter chamber by a space (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 18 shows the space spacing the interior chamber (56a) from the perimeter chamber (55a)); and a chassis (40a) configured to be disposed between the fluid-filled chamber and the upper (fig. 17 shows the chassis (40a) configured to be disposed between the chamber (50a) and the upper (20a)) and including an aperture (43a) formed through a thickness of the chassis and receiving the interior chamber therein, the interior chamber being exposed at a top surface (41a) of the chassis by the aperture and configured to oppose the upper (figs. 18 and 20A show the aperture (43a) being formed through the thickness of the chassis (40a) and receiving the interior chamber (56a) therein, the interior chamber being exposed at a top surface of the chassis and configured to oppose the upper) the chassis including a bottom surface (42a) that contacts an upper barrier layer of the fluid-filled chamber and fully fills the space formed between the interior chamber and the perimeter chamber (annotated fig. 20b shows the bottom surface (42a) contacting the upper barrier layer and fully filling the space formed between the interior chamber (56a) and the perimeter chamber (55a)) .
Regarding Claim 2, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the perimeter chamber (55a) includes a first segment (see annotated Fig.) extending along a medial side of the sole structure, a second segment (see annotated Fig.) extending along a lateral side of the sole structure, and an arcuate segment (see annotated Fig.) extending between and connecting the first segment and the second segment (annotated fig. 18 shows the first, second, and arcuate segments of the perimeter chamber extending along the medial and lateral sides and between the first and second segments, respectively).
Regarding Claim 3, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the arcuate segment (see annotated Fig.) extends along a posterior end of the sole structure (annotated fig. 18 shows the arcuate segment extending along a posterior end of the sole structure).
Regarding Claim 4, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the first segment (see annotated Fig.), the second segment (see annotated Fig.), and the arcuate segment (see annotated Fig.) cooperate to form a substantially U-shape (Annotated fig. 18 shows the first, second, and arcuate segments cooperating to form a U-shape).
Regarding Claim 5, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the top surface (41a) of the chassis opposes the upper and is disposed on an opposite side of the chassis than the bottom surface (42a), the aperture extending through a thickness of the chassis between the top surface and the bottom surface (fig. 18 and 20A shows the aperture (43a) extending through a thickness of the chassis between top surface (41a) and opposite bottom surface (42a)).
Regarding Claim 6, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the bottom surface (42a) includes a first recess (see annotated Fig.) that receives the perimeter chamber (55a) (annotated fig. 20A shows the first recess receiving the perimeter chamber (55a)).
Regarding Claim 7, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the fluid-filled chamber (50a) includes a web area (54a) extending between and joining the perimeter chamber (55a) and the interior chamber (56a) (fig. 20A shows the web area (54a) extending between and joining the perimeter chamber (55a) and the interior chamber (56a)), the bottom surface of the chassis extending between the perimeter chamber and interior chamber and opposing the web area (fig. 20A shows the bottom surface (42a) of the chassis (40a) extending between the perimeter chamber (55a) and the interior chamber (56a) and opposing the web area (54a)).
Regarding Claim 8, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches an outsole (60a) having a first surface (61a) opposing the chassis and a second surface (62a) disposed on an opposite side of the outsole than the first surface and defining a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (fig. 18 shows the outsole having a first surface (61a) opposing the chassis and a second, opposite surface (62a) defining a ground engaging surface).
Regarding Claim 10, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the outsole (60a) includes a first recess (see annotated Fig.) that receives the interior chamber (56a) and a second recess (see annotated Fig.) that receives the perimeter chamber (55a) (annotated fig. 20A shows the outsole (60a) including a first and a second recess that receives the interior chamber (56a) and the perimeter chamber (55a)).
Regarding Claim 11, Schindler et al. teaches a sole structure (30a) for an article of footwear (10) having an upper (20) (paragraph [0066] teaches “sole structure 30a may be utilized with upper 20 to form footwear 10”), the sole structure comprising: a chassis (40a) including a top surface (41a) configured to oppose the upper and a bottom surface (42a) disposed on an opposite side of the chassis than the top surface (fig. 18 shows the chassis (40a) having opposite top (41a) and bottom (42a) surfaces); an outsole (60a) including a first surface (61a) opposing the bottom surface of the chassis and a ground- engaging surface (62a) disposed on an opposite side of the outsole than the first surface (fig. 18 shows the outsole having a first surface (61a) opposing the bottom surface (42a) and an opposite ground engaging surface (62a)); and a fluid-filled chamber (50a) disposed between the bottom surface of the chassis and the top surface of the outsole (fig. 18 shows the chamber (50a) disposed between the bottom surface of the chassis and the top surface of the outsole) and including a perimeter chamber (55a) and an interior chamber (56a) at least partially surrounded by the perimeter chamber (fig. 18 shows the perimeter chamber (55a) at least partially surrounding the interior chamber (56a)) and spaced apart from the perimeter chamber by a space (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 18 shows the space spacing the interior chamber (56a) from the perimeter chamber (55a)), the interior chamber (56) having a first portion extending through the chassis and a second portion in contact with the first surface of the outsole (fig. 20A shows the first upper portion of the interior chamber (56a) extending through the chassis (40a) and the second lower portion in contact with the first surface (61a) of the outsole (60a)) the bottom surface of the chassis (42a) contacting an upper barrier layer of the fluid-filled chamber and fully fills the space formed between the interior chamber and the perimeter chamber (annotated fig. 20b shows the bottom surface contacting the upper barrier layer and fully filling the space formed between the interior chamber (56a) and the perimeter chamber (55a)).
Regarding Claim 12, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the perimeter chamber (55a) includes a first segment (see annotated Fig.) extending along a medial side of the sole structure, a second segment (see annotated Fig.) extending along a lateral side of the sole structure, and an arcuate segment (see annotated Fig.) extending between and connecting the first segment and the second segment (annotated fig. 18 shows the first, second, and arcuate segments of the perimeter chamber extending along the medial and lateral sides and between the first and second segments, respectively).
Regarding Claim 13, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 12, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the arcuate segment (see annotated Fig.) extends along a posterior end of the sole structure (annotated fig. 18 shows the arcuate segment extending along a posterior end of the sole structure).
Regarding Claim 14, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 12, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the first segment (see annotated Fig.), the second segment (see annotated Fig.), and the arcuate segment (see annotated Fig.) cooperate to form a substantially U-shape (Annotated fig. 18 shows the first, second, and arcuate segments cooperating to form a U-shape).
Regarding Claim 15, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the chassis (40a) includes an aperture (43a) extending through a thickness of the chassis between the top surface (41a) and the bottom surface (42a) (fig. 18 shows the aperture (43a) extending through a thickness of the chassis between top surface (41a) and bottom surface (42a)).
Regarding Claim 16, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the bottom surface (42a) includes a first recess (see annotated Fig.) that receives the perimeter chamber (55a) (annotated fig. 20A shows the first recess receiving the perimeter chamber (55)).
Regarding Claim 17, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the fluid-filled chamber (50a) includes a web area (54a) extending between and joining the perimeter chamber (55) and the interior chamber (56a) (fig. 20A shows the web area (54a) extending between and joining the perimeter chamber (55a) and the interior chamber (56a)), the bottom surface of the chassis extending between the perimeter chamber and interior chamber and opposing the web area (fig. 20A shows the bottom surface (42a) of the chassis (40a) extending between the perimeter chamber (55a) and the interior chamber (56a) and opposing the web area (54a)).
Regarding Claim 20, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the outsole (60a) includes a first recess (see annotated Fig.) that receives the interior chamber (56a) and a second recess (see annotated Fig.) that receives the perimeter chamber (55a) (annotated fig. 20A shows the outsole (60a) including a first and a second recess that receives the interior chamber (56a) and the perimeter chamber (55a)).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
828
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler et al. (US 2009/0151196) in view of Wilkerson et al. (US 2017/0105477).
Regarding Claim 9, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the first surface of the outsole is in contact with the fluid-filled chamber in a heel region of the sole structure (fig. 17 shows the first surface (61a) of the outsole (60a) being in contact with the fluid filled chamber (50a)) in a heel region (13)).
Schindler et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first surface of the outsole is in contact with a bottom surface of the chassis in a forefoot region of the sole structure.
Attention is drawn to Wilkerson et al. which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Wilkerson et al. teaches a sole structure, the sole structure comprising: a chassis (see annotated Fig.) and an outsole (see annotated Fig.) having a first surface opposing the chassis and a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the outsole than the first surface and defining a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (annotated fig. 4 shows the outsole having a first surface opposite the chassis and a second opposite surface defining a ground engaging surface). Wilkerson et al. further teaches wherein the first surface of the outsole is in contact with a bottom surface of the chassis in a forefoot region of the sole structure (paragraph [0048], “, the top layer front end is fixedly attached to the bottom layer front end,” wherein as the chassis (top layer) and outsole (bottom layer) are fixedly attached they are clearly in contact).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler to include the teachings of Wilkerson et al. such that the first surface of the outsole is in contact with a bottom surface of the chassis in a forefoot region of the sole structure so as to prevent the outsole from moving laterally in relation to the chassis (paragraph [0015], “Additionally, the top layer is fixedly attached to the bottom layer with a means for preventing the bottom layer from laterally moving in relation to the top layer.”), especially as fig. 7 of Schindler et al. appears to show the outsole in contact with the bottom surface of the chassis in the forefoot region but does not specifically disclose this.
Regarding Claim 18, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the first surface of the outsole is in contact with the fluid-filled chamber in a heel region of the sole structure (fig. 17 shows the first surface (61a) of the outsole (60a) being in contact with the fluid filled chamber (50a)) in a heel region (13)).
Schindler et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first surface of the outsole is in contact with a bottom surface of the chassis in a forefoot region of the sole structure
Attention is drawn to Wilkerson et al. which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Wilkerson et al. teaches a sole structure, the sole structure comprising: a chassis (see annotated Fig.) and an outsole (see annotated Fig.) having a first surface opposing the chassis and a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the outsole than the first surface and defining a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure (annotated fig. 4 shows the outsole having a first surface opposite the chassis and a second opposite surface defining a ground engaging surface). Wilkerson et al. further teaches wherein the first surface of the outsole is in contact with a bottom surface of the chassis in a forefoot region of the sole structure (paragraph [0048], “, the top layer front end is fixedly attached to the bottom layer front end,” wherein as the chassis (top layer) and outsole (bottom layer) are fixedly attached they are clearly in contact).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler to include the teachings of Wilkerson et al. such that the first surface of the outsole is in contact with a bottom surface of the chassis in a forefoot region of the sole structure so as to prevent the outsole from moving laterally in relation to the chassis (paragraph [0015], “Additionally, the top layer is fixedly attached to the bottom layer with a means for preventing the bottom layer from laterally moving in relation to the top layer.”), especially as fig. 7 of Schindler et al. appears to show the outsole in contact with the bottom surface of the chassis in the forefoot region but does not specifically disclose this.
Regarding Claim 19, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 18, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the first surface (61a) of the outsole (60a) is spaced apart and separated from the bottom surface (42a) of the chassis (40a) by the fluid-filled chamber (50a) in the heel region (13) of the sole structure (figs. 17 and 20A show the first surface (61a) of the outsole (60a) being spaced and separated from the bottom surface (42a) of the chassis (40a) by chamber (50a) in the heel region (13)).
PNG
media_image3.png
394
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 independent Claims 1 and 11, Applicant submits that Schindler does not teach all of the limitations recited in Claims 1 and 11, more specifically that Schindler does not teach wherein the bottom surface of the chassis entirely fills the space formed between the interior chamber and the perimeter chamber. Examiner agrees, however, such arguments are moot in view of a new ground of rejection set forth above over a new embodiment of Schindler et al.
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