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 II in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diard et al. (US 2023/0329388).
Regarding Claim 1, Diard et al. teaches an article of footwear (see fig. 99), comprising: an upper (see annotated Fig.) attached to a sole structure (annotated fig. 99 shows the upper attached to a sole (548)); a forefoot region (see annotated Fig.), a midfoot region (see annotated Fig.), and a heel region (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 99 shows all the regions as claimed); a longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig.) that intersects a toe end located in the forefoot region and a heel end located in the heel region, wherein a longitudinal direction is parallel with the longitudinal axis (annotated fig. 98 shows the longitudinal axis as claimed and being considered to be parallel with the longitudinal direction); a plate (552) comprising a top plate (see annotated Fig.) that is integrally joined to a bottom plate (see annotated Fig.) at a hinge (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 95 shows the top plate being integrally joined to the bottom plate at a hinge), wherein the top plate has a first anterior end (see annotated Fig.) disposed adjacent a toe end of the sole structure and a first posterior end (see annotated Fig.) disposed within the heel region (annotated fig. 98 shows the anterior and posterior ends of the top plate being disposed adjacent the toe end and heel regions, respectively, of the sole), wherein the bottom plate has a second anterior end (see annotated Fig.) disposed adjacent the toe end and a second posterior end (see annotated Fig.) disposed in the midfoot region (annotated fig. 99 shows the second anterior and posterior ends disposed adjacent the toe end and midfoot regions, respectively); and a gap (see annotated Fig.) that is defined between the top plate and the bottom plate, the gap extending from the hinge toward the first posterior end of the top plate, wherein a vertical distance of the gap is measured between the top plate and the bottom plate (annotated fig. 95 shows the gap being defined between the top and bottom plates and extending from the hinge toward the first posterior end and a vertical distance is measured between the top and bottom plates), and wherein the top plate includes a convex portion (see annotated Fig.) in each of the heel region and the forefoot region (annotated fig. 94 shows the convex portion being convex in relation to the bottom plate in the heel and forefoot regions).
Regarding Claim 2, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the hinge has a rear- facing wall (see annotated Fig.) that is curved between the top plate (see annotated Fig.) and the bottom plate (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 95 shows the rear facing wall of the hinge being curved between the top and bottom plates).
Regarding Claim 3, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the vertical distance is greatest proximate the second posterior end (see annotated Fig.) of the bottom plate (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 95 shows the vertical distance being greatest proximate the second posterior end of the bottom plate).
Regarding Claim 4, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the top plate (see annotated Fig.) includes a slot (see annotated Fig.) that extends continuously from the midfoot region through the first posterior end (see annotated Fig.) to define a lateral posterior leg (see annotated Fig.) and a medial posterior leg (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 94 shows the slot extending continuously from the midfoot through the first posterior end to define a lateral and a medial posterior leg).
Regarding Claim 6, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the bottom plate (see annotated Fig.) defines a width between a lateral edge and a medial edge, and wherein the width is greater in the forefoot region than in the midfoot region (annotated fig. 97 shows the width of the bottom plate being greater in the forefoot than in the midfoot region).
Regarding Claim 7, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein a midplane bisects the article of footwear between the heel end and the toe end (fig. 99 shows a midplane bisecting the article of footwear between the heel and toe ends), and wherein a center of mass point of the article of footwear is located between the toe end and the midplane (fig. 99 shows a larger portion of the plate being disposed in the forefoot region than the heel region, therein the center of mass point clearly lies between the toe end and the midplane).
Regarding Claim 8, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein hinge defines a flex axis (see annotated Fig.) extending in a lateral-medial direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and wherein the top plate and the bottom plate are configured to be disposed in a first position in an unloaded state (annotated fig. 94 shows the hinge defining a flex axis and the top and bottom plate in a first position in an unloaded state).
Regarding Claim 9, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the top plate and the bottom plate are configured to rotate toward one another about the flex axis to a second position of the hinge when a load is applied, and wherein the hinge is configured to return the top plate and the bottom plate to the first position when the load is removed (paragraph [0207] teaches “The flexing and resiliency of the front support 560 helps to cushion a user's foot upon initial impact and propel their foot forward to facilitate a roll forward motion of the foot as the front support moves back to a non-compressed position. Also, the front medial arm 590 and the front lateral arm 592 of the front support 560 act as propulsive elements to further enhance the forward propulsion of the foot. In this way, the support plate 552 provides enhanced cushioning and support to a user's foot during movement while also propelling their foot forward to help increase power and speed and make movement smooth and efficient,” therein the top and bottom plate are clearly capable of rotating toward one another around the flex axis under a load, and returning to their first position when the load is removed. Examiner notes that this limitation is functional, and as Diard et al. teaches all of the structure of the plate as claimed and is capable of flexing, it is considered as capable of performing the function as claimed).
Regarding Claim 10, Diard et al. teaches an article of footwear (See fig. 99), comprising: an upper (see annotated Fig.) attached to a sole structure (annotated fig. 99 shows the upper attached to a sole (548)); a forefoot region (see annotated Fig.) including a toe end at a distal end of the forefoot region, a midfoot region (see annotated Fig.), and a heel region (see annotated Fig.) including a heel end at a distal end of the heel region (annotated fig. 99 shows all the regions as claimed); a plate (552) having a top plate (see annotated Fig.), a bottom plate (see annotated Fig.), and a hinge (see annotated Fig.) located at a toe end of the plate (annotated fig. 95 shows the top and bottom plates and a hinge at a toe end), wherein the top plate and bottom plate diverge relative to one another to define a gap (see annotated Fig.) therebetween (annotated fig. 95 shows the top and bottom plates diverging to define a gap); a midsole having an upper midsole cushion (554), an intermediate midsole cushion (598), and a lower midsole cushion (see annotated Fig.) having a top surface that is attached to the bottom plate (fig. 105 shows the top surface of the lower midsole cushion attached to the bottom plate), wherein the upper midsole cushion extends continuously from the forefoot region to the heel region (fig. 105 shows the upper midsole cushion (554) extending continuously from the forefoot to the heel region), and wherein the intermediate midsole cushion includes a forefoot cushion (598a) and a heel cushion (598b) that has a forwardmost point spaced rearwardly of the forefoot cushion (fig. 105 shows the forwardmost point of the heel cushion spaced rearwardly of the forefoot cushion); and an outsole (see annotated Fig.) attached to a bottom surface of the lower midsole cushion (annotated fig. 93 shows the outsole attached to the bottom surface of the lower midsole cushion), wherein the forefoot cushion includes a medial cushion pod (see annotated Fig.) and a lateral cushion pod (see annotated Fig.) that are arranged between the top plate and the bottom plate (annotated fig. 106 shows the forefoot cushion (598a) comprising a medial and a lateral cushion pod, fig. 105 shows the forefoot cushion disposed between the top and bottom plates).
Regarding Claim 11, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein a portion of an upper surface of each of the medial cushion pod and the lateral cushion pod is distanced from and not in contact with the top plate (fig. 105 shows the upper surfaces of the medial and lateral cushion pods being distanced from and not in contact with the top plate).
Regarding Claim 13, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the forefoot cushion (598a) is directly in contact with the top plate and the bottom plate (fig. 105 shows the forefoot cushion (589a, also referred to as 594) directly in contact with the bottom plate, and further configured to be in contact with the top plate, for example when a downward force is placed on the top of the footwear).
Regarding Claim 14, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the bottom plate (see annotated Fig.) is at least partially recessed into the top surface of the lower midsole cushion (fig. 105 shows the bottom plate being at least partially recessed into the top surface of the lower midsole cushion).
Regarding Claim 16, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein the top plate (see annotated Fig.) is at least partially recessed into a bottom surface of the upper midsole cushion (annotated fig. 99 shows the top plate being at least partially recessed into a bottom surface of the upper midsole cushion).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
943
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
430
828
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
449
821
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
374
830
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
375
505
media_image7.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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diard et al. (US 2023/0329388) in view of Chambers (US 2019/0365030).
Regarding Claim 5, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above.
Diard et al. does not teach wherein the top plate includes a plurality of ridges extending from the forefoot region toward the heel region.
Attention is drawn to Chambers which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Chambers teaches a plate (10) for an article of footwear (Abstract teaches “A sole structure for an article of footwear may have a midsole system that includes a sole plate”) comprising a top plate wherein the top plate has a first anterior end disposed adjacent a toe end of the sole structure and a first posterior end disposed within the heel region (fig. 12 shows the plate (10) having a first anterior end disposed adjacent a toe end and a first posterior end disposed within the heel region ). Chambers further teaches wherein the top plate includes a plurality of ridges (40) extending from the forefoot region toward the heel region (fig. 1 shows the ridges (40) extending from the forefoot region toward the heel region).
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 Diard et al. to include the teachings of Chambers such that the top plate includes a plurality of ridges extending from the forefoot region toward the heel region so as to allow the stiffness and energy absorption of the plate to be tuned as desired (paragraph [0028], “The ridges, grooves, and a varied thickness as described may tune the stiffness and energy absorption of the sole plate for different zones while permitting a unitary, one-piece component of uniform material. The sole plate may functions as a stiffness modifier within the sole structure.”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diard et al. (US 2023/0329388).
Regarding Claim 12, Diard et al. teaches all of the limitations of the article of footwear of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Diard et al. further teaches wherein an expansion zone (see annotated Fig.) is formed between the medial cushion pod and the lateral cushion pod (annotated fig. 106 shows an expansion zone between the medial and lateral cushion pods), and wherein both the lateral cushion pod and the medial cushion pod are arranged to be collinear with a center of mass point of the article of footwear (Diard et al. does not explicitly teach the lateral and medial cushion pods being collinear with a center of mass point of the article of footwear, however the pods at least appear to be collinear with a center of mass point as shown in fig. 106, further it would have been obvious to arrange the medial and lateral cushioning pods to be colinear with a center mass point of the article of footwear so as to provide additional cushioning for the wearer, and it further would have been obvious to try, as there are a finite number of predictable locations to place the medial and lateral cushion pods in the front of the sole and there is a reasonable expectation for success).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 17, none of the prior art, alone or in combination teaches or suggests an article of footwear having a plate with a top plate, a bottom plate, and a hinge, the plate being integrally formed, the top plate including a lateral, medial, and central ridge extending from the forefoot region, an intermediate midsole cushion comprising a forefoot cushion and a heel cushion, wherein the forefoot cushion is disposed within the gap between the top plate and the bottom plate, a lower midsole cushion m and wherein the lower midsole cushion includes a top surface that contacts a bottom surface of the bottom plate; and an outsole attached to a bottom surface of the heel cushion.
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.
Conclusion
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