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 VII, directed to claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims in US Patent 11,622,602 B2 (“‘602”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member. ‘602 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘602 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘602 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims in US Patent 11,622,602 B2 (“‘602”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller and US 2019/0365033 A1 to Chambers.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member. ‘602 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘602 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘602 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. As modified ‘602 does not specifically disclose wherein the second plate includes a raised portion that extends upwardly from a top surface of the second plate. However, attention is directed to Chambers teaching an analogous foot wear sole plate (abstract of Chambers). Specifically, Chambers teaches the profile of the sole plate across a transverse cross section comprises multiple waves forming ridges (paras 0048-0049 of Chambers) for purposes of tuning the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate (para 0022 of Chambers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified ‘602 would be further modified wherein the second plate includes multiple waves forming ridges across a transverse cross section for purposes of tuning the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate, as taught by Chambers (para 0022 of Chambers). Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims in US Patent 11,825,904 B2 (“‘904”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member (claim 1), an outsole including a first outsole portion coupled to the first cushioning member and a second outsole portion coupled to the second cushioning member (claims 5, 6). ‘904 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘904 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘904 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
Claim 1 is also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims in US Patent 11,974,629 B2 (“‘629”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member. ‘629 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘629 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘629 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims in US Patent 12,336,593 B2 (“‘593”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member. ‘593 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘593 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘593 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
Claims 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/246,283 (“‘283”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member. ‘283 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘283 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘283 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/246,283 (“‘283”) in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller and US 2019/0365033 A1 to Chambers.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an article of footwear having a sole structure with first and second cushioning members and a sole plate extending a gap between the first and second cushioning member. ‘283 does not specifically disclose the second sole plate, and its configuration, as recited by claim 1. However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein ‘283 would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, ‘283 would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate. As modified ‘283 does not specifically disclose wherein the second plate includes a raised portion that extends upwardly from a top surface of the second plate. However, attention is directed to Chambers teaching an analogous foot wear sole plate (abstract of Chambers). Specifically, Chambers teaches the profile of the sole plate across a transverse cross section comprises multiple waves forming ridges (paras 0048-0049 of Chambers) for purposes of tuning the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate (para 0022 of Chambers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified ‘283 would be further modified wherein the second plate includes multiple waves forming ridges across a transverse cross section for purposes of tuning the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate, as taught by Chambers (para 0022 of Chambers). Therefore, the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patents.
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 1-2, 5-7, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0320759 A1 to Conrad in view of US 2007/0107265 A1 to Mueller.
For claim 1, Conrad discloses an article of footwear (10) defining a forefoot region (20), a midfoot region (22), and a heel region (24), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (14); and a sole structure (12) comprising: a first cushioning member disposed in the heel region (48); a second cushioning member disposed in the forefoot region and the midfoot region (44), the second cushioning member spaced apart from the first cushioning member by a gap that extends between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member in the midfoot region (fig. 4); a first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (40, see fig. 4); wherein the first cushioning member is positioned below the first plate (see fig. 4 where rear of 48 is below rear of 40).
Conrad does not specifically disclose a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member; and wherein the first cushioning member is positioned below the second plate.
However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Conrad would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, Conrad would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate.
For claim 2, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first cushioning member is directly coupled to the upper (para 0115 and fig. 1).
For claim 5, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first plate defines a longitudinal length that is greater than a longitudinal length defined by the second plate (see discussion for claim 1 and teachings of Mueller providing the second plate only extends across the gap and is therefore providing as having a longitudinal length less than the longitudinal length of the first plate).
For claim 6, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the sole structure further includes an outsole including a first outsole portion coupled to the first cushioning member and a second outsole portion coupled to the second cushioning member (50A, 50B).
For claim 7, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 6, wherein the first outsole portion includes a first outsole element and a second outsole element that are separated from one another (50A, 50B).
For claim 15, Conrad discloses an article of footwear (10) defining a forefoot region (20), a midfoot region (22), and a heel region (24), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (14); and a sole structure (12) comprising: a first cushioning member disposed in the heel region (48); a second cushioning member disposed in the forefoot region and the midfoot region (44), the second cushioning member spaced apart from the first cushioning member by a gap that extends between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (fig. 4); a first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (40, see fig. 4); and an outsole including a first outsole portion coupled to the first cushioning member and a second outsole portion coupled to the second cushioning member (50A, 50B).
Conrad does not specifically disclose a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member.
However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Conrad would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller).
For claim 16, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the outsole defines a non-continuous ground engaging surface of the article of footwear (50A and 50B are non-continuous, see fig. 1).
For claim 17, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the first outsole portion includes a first outsole element and a second outsole element that are separated from one another (50A and 50B are considered as elements of the outsole as a whole).
For claim 18, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the gap is located within the midfoot region of the article of footwear (fig. 1).
For claim 19, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the gap extends from a lateral side of the sole structure to a medial side of the sole structure (see fig. 1).
For claim 20, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the first cushioning member is positioned between the first plate and the first outsole portion (see fig. 4).
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,625,905 B2 to Kita in view of Mueller.
For claim 1, Kita discloses an article of footwear (1) defining a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region (front, middle, and rear of 1), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (2); and a sole structure (3, 4, 5, 8, 9 see fig. 1) comprising: a first cushioning member disposed in the heel region (4, figs. 1-3); a second cushioning member disposed in the forefoot region and the midfoot region (5, figs. 1-3), the second cushioning member spaced apart from the first cushioning member by a gap that extends between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member in the midfoot region (see fig. 2 illustrating gap across 6); a first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (6, figs. 1-3); wherein the first cushioning member is positioned below the first plate (fig. 1).
Kita does not specifically disclose a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member; and wherein the first cushioning member is positioned below the second plate.
However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Kita would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller). As modified, Kita would be considered as also providing the first cushioning member is positioned below the rear part of the second plate.
For claim 3, the modified Kita teaches the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the second cushioning member is directly coupled to the upper (See fig. 1 wherein front of 5 is coupled to the upper 2).
For claim 4, the modified Kita teaches the article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the second cushioning member defines a longitudinal length that is greater than a longitudinal length defined by the first cushioning member (see fig. 1 wherein the second cushioning member is illustrated and as a longitudinal length that is greater than a longitudinal length illustrated by the first cushioning member).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Mueller and US 2019/0365033 A1 to Chambers.
For claim 8, Conrad teaches an article of footwear (10) defining a forefoot region (20), a midfoot region (22), and a heel region (24), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (14); and a sole structure (12) comprising: a first cushioning member disposed in the heel region (48); a second cushioning member disposed in the forefoot region and the midfoot region (44), the second cushioning member spaced apart from the first cushioning member by a gap that extends between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member in the midfoot region (fig. 4); a first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (40, see fig. 4).
Conrad does not specifically disclose a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member; and wherein the second plate includes a raised portion that extends upwardly from a top surface of the second plate.
However, attention is directed to Mueller teaching an article of footwear comprising an analogous spaced apart cushioning members (114, 116) and a ridged support (132). Specifically, Mueller teaches a resilient bridge (120) is disposed below the rigid support (132) and also extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see fig. 3 of Mueller) for purposes of providing additional structural support and as well as aesthetic advantages (para 0052 of Mueller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Conrad would be modified to comprise a second plate positioned below the first plate that extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member for purposes of providing additional structural support to the first plate and as well as providing a desirable aesthetic to the article of footwear, as taught by Mueller (para 0052 of Mueller).
As modified, Conrad does not specifically disclose wherein the second plate includes a raised portion that extends upwardly from a top surface of the second plate.
However, attention is directed to Chambers teaching an analogous foot wear sole plate (abstract of Chambers). Specifically, Chambers teaches the profile of the sole plate across a transverse cross section comprises multiple waves forming ridges (paras 0048-0049 of Chambers) for purposes of tuning the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate (para 0022 of Chambers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Conrad would be further modified wherein the second plate includes multiple waves forming ridges across a transverse cross section for purposes of tuning the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate, as taught by Chambers (para 0022 of Chambers).
For claim 9, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 8, wherein the raised portion is part of a plurality of raised portions defined by the second plate (multiple waves, see discussion for claim 8 above).
For claim 10, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 8, wherein the first plate includes a rear portion and a curved portion that includes an anterior portion and a posterior portion (see plate 40 in fig. 4).
For claim 11, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 10, wherein the posterior portion of the curved portion of the first plate extends across the gap between the first cushioning member and the second cushioning member (see plate 40 in fig. 4).
For claim 12, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 10, wherein the rear portion of the first plate is positioned above the first cushioning member (see fig. 4 where rear of 48 is below rear of 40).
For claim 13, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 8, wherein the gap extends along a U-shaped path (fig. 3).
For claim 14, the modified Conrad teaches the article of footwear of claim 8, wherein the sole structure further includes an outsole including a first outsole portion coupled to the first cushioning member and a second outsole portion coupled to the second cushioning member (50A, 50B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:30pm 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, 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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights