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 1-17, 19, and 20 remain pending in the application, with Claims 1 and 11 being newly amended and Claim 18 being newly canceled.
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) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schindler et al. (US 7707745).
Regarding Claim 1, Schindler et al. teaches a sole structure (230) for an article of footwear (200), the sole structure comprising: a midsole (232) including a sidewall (see annotated Fig.) having a recess (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 38 shows the midsole sidewall having a recess ); a bladder (240) disposed closer to a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure than the midsole (figs. 39C and 40 show the bladder disposed closer to a ground engaging surface than the midsole (232)) and including a first chamber (see annotated Fig.) having a series of lobes (242a-f) extending around a perimeter of the first chamber (annotated fig. 43 shows the lobes (242a-f) extending around a perimeter of the first chamber); and a cradle (233) including a wall (see annotated Fig.) having an undulating profile (annotated figs. 36 and 40 shows the wall having an undulating profile as the height of the wall is varied along the outer periphery of the upper, the height increasing from the forwardmost edge on the lateral side to the rear of the cradle, and then decreasing to the forwardmost edge on the medial side) received within the recess of the midsole (annotated fig. 38 shows the wall within the recess of the midsole (232) such that the wall is flush with the midsole sidewall) and a plurality of supports (235) extending from the wall in a direction toward the ground-engaging surface (annotated fig. 40 shows the supports extending from the wall towards the ground engaging surface), supports of the plurality of supports in contact with respective lobes of the bladder (fig. 37 shows the supports (235) in contact with the respective lobes (242a-f) of the bladder).
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 wall (see annotated Fig.) extends from a medial side of the sole structure, around a heel region of the sole structure, to a lateral side of the sole structure (fig. 38 shows the wall extending from a medial side, around a heel region, to a lateral side of the sole structure).
Regarding Claim 3, 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 a height of the wall (see annotated Fig.) varies along a length of the wall (fig. 40 shows the wall height varying along the length of the wall).
Regarding Claim 4, 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 bladder includes a second chamber (241) at least partially surrounded by the first chamber (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 43 shows the second chamber (241) surrounded by the first chamber).
Regarding Claim 5, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the second chamber (241) is an ovoid (fig. 43 shows the second chamber (241) being an ovoid).
Regarding Claim 8, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above. Schindler et al. further teaches wherein the midsole (232) includes an interior support (see annotated Fig.) extending in a direction toward the ground-engaging surface and in contact with the second chamber (241) (figs. 38 and 39C show the interior support in contact with the second chamber and extending toward the ground engaging surface).
Regarding Claim 9, 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 midsole (232) includes an interior support (see annotated Fig.) extending in a direction toward the ground-engaging surface and in contact with the second chamber (241) (figs. 38 and 39C show the interior support in contact with the second chamber and extending toward the ground engaging surface).
Regarding Claim 10, Schindler et al. teaches an article of footwear (200) incorporating the sole structure (230) of Claim 1 (fig. 35 shows the article of footwear (200) incorporating the sole structure (230) of Claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
594
842
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
531
613
media_image5.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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler et al. (US 7707745) in view of Potter et al. (US 5353459).
Regarding Claim 6, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above.
Schindler et al. does not teach wherein a pressure of the second chamber is different than a pressure of the first chamber.
Attention is drawn to Potter et al., which teaches an analogous bladder for an article of footwear. Potter teaches a bladder (100) including a first chamber (116) and a second chamber (120) at least partially surrounded by the first chamber (fig. 4C shows the first chamber (116) surrounding the second chamber (120)). Potter et al. further teaches wherein a pressure of the second chamber is different than a pressure of the first chamber (col. 8 ll. 60-61, “outer chamber 116 is inflated to a pressure above that of central chamber 120”).
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 et al. to include the teachings of Potter et al. such that a pressure of the second chamber is different than a pressure of the first chamber so as to allow increased rearfoot stability (col. 8 ll. 66-68, “Bladder 100 inflated in this manner is stiffer around the periphery than in the center of the rearfoot to provide increased rearfoot stability”).
Regarding Claim 7, Schindler et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole structure of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above.
Schindler et al. does not teach wherein a pressure of the second chamber is less than a pressure of the first chamber.
Attention is drawn to Potter et al., which teaches an analogous bladder for an article of footwear. Potter teaches a bladder (100) including a first chamber (116) and a second chamber (120) at least partially surrounded by the first chamber (fig. 4C shows the first chamber (116) surrounding the second chamber (120)), and wherein a pressure of the second chamber is different than a pressure of the first chamber (col. 8 ll. 60-61, “outer chamber 116 is inflated to a pressure above that of central chamber 120”). Potter et al. further teaches wherein a pressure of the second chamber (120) is less than a pressure of the first chamber (116) (col. 8 ll. 60-61, “outer chamber 116 is inflated to a pressure above that of central chamber 120”).
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 et al. to include the teachings of Potter et al. such that a pressure of the second chamber is less than a pressure of the first chamber so as to allow increased rearfoot stability (col. 8 ll. 66-68, “Bladder 100 inflated in this manner is stiffer around the periphery than in the center of the rearfoot to provide increased rearfoot stability”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches a sole structure having a midsole, a bladder, and a cradle all dimensioned and disposed relative to one another in the manner as claimed along with an outsole having a portion attached to the midsole and a portion attached to the bladder, the first and second portions being connected by a flexure. To modify Schindler et al. in that matter 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 independent Claim 1, Applicant submits that Schindler et al. does not teach the cradle having an undulating profile. More specifically, Applicant points to structure (233, 234) as making up the cradle, and submits that the cradle has a stepped rather than undulating profile. Examiner disagrees. As a point of clarification, Examiner notes that the cradle is referred to throughout the rejections as structure (233), and that the structure (234) is not referenced in the rejection. Further, Examiner submits that Schindler et al. has an undulating profile, as explained in the rejection above and consistent with the interpretation of “undulating” as used in the instant specification. Paragraph [0088] of the instant specification recites “the peripheral wall 176 may have an undulated profile, such that a height H176 of the peripheral wall 176 varies along the outer periphery of the upper 200” and further fig. 1 shows the H176 being measured from the top edge of the peripheral wall to a constant measurement that appears to correspond to the bottommost measurement of the cradle. Following this interpretation, it is clear that Schindler does teach an undulating cradle, because (as noted in the rejection above) the top edge of the cradle (measured as relative to a constant lower plane) has a height that varies along the outer periphery of the upper, specifically increasing from a first end of the cradle to the rearmost point of the shoe, then decreasing towards the second end. Examiner agrees that the top and bottom edges of the cradle do not appear to be undulating in unison, however this interpretation does not appear to be consistent with the current claim language. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Schindler et al. is maintained.
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 on (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