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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “prolate hemispheroid shape” with the reservoirs (claims 5 and 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The term “prolate hemispheroid” is a specific shape that is half of a full ellipse rotated about its major axis. None of the drawings of the reservoirs are illustrated to define this exact shape. In Fig. 4, lateral and medial reservoir shapes are shown in cross-section, wherein each has an upper corner section at the outermost side of the sole. In Fig. 5, a central reservoir is shown, but incompletely since the cross-section is cutting through the conduits (i.e. the drawings to not explicitly show an exact prolate hemispheroid shape). Examiner notes that in the parent applications (16/771,943 and 18/163,404), this objection was overcome by amending the claims to recite that the relevant reservoirs “include” this particular shape, rather than “define” the shape. Applicant is suggested to take similar action to obviate this objection, in the present application. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 4 and 14 recite the adjective “elongate”, and this term is not recited anywhere in the Specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: each clause in the body of claim contains a run-on listing of elements that would be clearer if separated out into separate statements. Examiner suggests amending as follows:
a first segment including a first lateral reservoir, a first medial reservoir, and a first central reservoir extending between and fluidly coupling the first lateral reservoir and the first medial reservoir[[,]]; wherein the first lateral reservoir, the first medial reservoir, and the first central reservoir [[cooperating]] cooperate to define a first U-shape; and a second segment including a second lateral reservoir, a second medial reservoir, and a second central reservoir extending between and fluidly coupling the second lateral reservoir and the second medial reservoir[[,]]; wherein the second lateral reservoir, the second medial reservoir, and the second central reservoir [[cooperating]] cooperate to define a second U-shape that is aligned with the first U-shape of the first segment
Claim 5, line 3: “defines” should recite “includes” (see above Drawing objection)
Claim 9: the clause in the body of claim contains a run-on listing of elements that would be clearer if separated out into separate statements. Examiner suggests amending as follows:
further comprising a third segment including a third lateral reservoir, a third medial reservoir, and a third central reservoir extending between and fluidly coupling the third lateral reservoir and the third medial reservoir[[,]]; wherein the third lateral reservoir, the third medial reservoir, and the third central reservoir [[cooperating]] cooperate to define a third U-shape that is aligned with the first U-shape and the second U-shape
Claim 11: the last clause of the claim would be clearer if the last statement were separated from the clause indented under “each U-shaped segment comprising:”. Examiner suggests amending as follows:
each U-shaped segment comprising: a lateral reservoir positioned adjacent a lateral side of the sole structure, a medial reservoir positioned adjacent a medial side of the sole structure, and a central reservoir extending between and fluidly coupling the lateral reservoir and the medial reservoir[[,]]; and wherein the U-shaped segments of the plurality of U-shaped segments [[being]] are arranged in series along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure.
i.e. the ending “wherein” statement’s indent should match the indent level of current line 2 in the claim that starts “a plurality of…”
Claim 15, line 3: “defines” should recite “includes” (see above Drawing objection)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 8, 13, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites the term “their” which is indefinite. Correction is required. Examiner suggests amending as follows: “wherein the first U-shape has a first open end and the second U-shape has a second open end, wherein the first open end and the second open end are oriented to face the same direction”.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant recites “wherein each U-shaped segment is separated from an adjacent U-shaped segment by a web area”. The segments are not positively recited “a U-shaped segment” or “an adjacent U-shaped segment”. The segments are positively recited as “a first segment” and “a second segment”. It is unclear if claim 8 is positively reciting additional segment structure. Correction is required. Examiner suggests amending as follows: “wherein the first segment is separated from the second segment by a web area”.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites “wherein U-shaped segments of the plurality of U-shaped segments are oriented such that their open ends face the same direction”. First, it is unclear if “U-shaped segments” is positively reciting additional segments in the plurality, or should be interpreted as referring to existing segments in the plurality. Second, the term “their” is indefinite. Correction is required. Examiner suggests amending as follows: “wherein the U-shaped segments of the plurality of U-shaped segments each have a respective open end, wherein the open ends are oriented such to face the same direction”.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant recites “a medial side of the sole structure” (lines 3-4) and “a lateral side of the sole structure” (line 5). Independent claim 11, from which claim 16 depends, already positively recites “a medial side of the sole structure” (line 5) and “a lateral side of the sole structure” (line 4), and it is unclear if claim 16 is positively reciting additional medial and lateral sides, or should be referencing the existing medial and lateral sides. Correction is required. Examiner suggests claim 16 recites “the medial side of the sole structure” and “the lateral side of the sole structure”.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant recites “an adjacent U-shaped segment” It is unclear if this is part of the existing plurality of U-shaped segments, or is being positively recited as an additional U-shaped segment. Correction is required. Examiner suggests amending as follows: “an adjacent U-shaped segment of the plurality of U-shaped segments”.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites “wherein U-shaped segments of the plurality of U-shaped segments are in fluid communication with one another”. It is unclear if “U-shaped segments” is positively reciting additional segments in the plurality, or should be interpreted as referring to existing segments in the plurality. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “the U-shaped segments”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 (claims 3, 8, 13, 16, 18 and 19 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bates et al. (hereinafter “Bates”) (US 2013/0212909).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bates discloses a sole structure (#100; see Fig. 18 embodiment) for an article of footwear (see Fig. 1, Title, Abstract of Bates; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), the sole structure comprising: a first segment (see annotated Fig. 18 below, which identifies a first segment; Examiner notes that the term "segment" is very broad and merely means "one of the parts into which something is divided; a division, portion, or section". (Defn. No. 1 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)) including a first lateral reservoir, a first medial reservoir, and a first central reservoir (see annotated Fig. 18 below; first lateral reservoir is identified with “1LR”, first medial reservoir is identified by “1MR”, first central reservoir is identified by “1CR”) extending between and fluidly coupling the first lateral reservoir and the first medial reservoir (fluidly connected by passageways #322 (see Fig. 18); ¶ 0083-0084 of Bates), the first lateral reservoir, the first medial reservoir, and the first central reservoir cooperating to define a first U-shape (see annotated Fig. 18 below, wherein the dashed line that identifies the first segment shows a U-shape); and a second segment (see annotated Fig. 18 below, which identifies a second segment) including a second lateral reservoir, a second medial reservoir, and a second central reservoir (see annotated Fig. 18 below; second lateral reservoir is identified with “2LR”, second medial reservoir is identified by “2MR”, second central reservoir is identified by “2CR”) extending between and fluidly coupling the second lateral reservoir and the second medial reservoir (fluidly connected by passageways #322 (see Fig. 18); ¶ 0083-0084 of Bates), the second lateral reservoir, the second medial reservoir, and the second central reservoir cooperating to define a second U-shape (see annotated Fig. 18 below, wherein the dashed line that identifies the second segment shows a U-shape) that is aligned with the first U-shape of the first segment (the U-shapes of the first and second segments are shown to be generally aligned, to at least some degree).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bates discloses that a central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure extends through the first central reservoir and the second central reservoir (see annotated Fig. 18 above, which shows a central longitudinal axis to pass through all the identified central reservoirs).
Regarding claim 3, Bates discloses that the first U-shape and the second U-shape are oriented such that their open ends face the same direction (see annotated Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 4, Bates discloses that at least one of the first medial reservoir, the second medial reservoir, the first lateral reservoir, the second lateral reservoir, the first central reservoir, and the second central reservoir is elongate (since the identified reservoirs have some measurable length, they are “elongate” inasmuch as has been defined in the claim; it is further noted that Bates discloses that while the pods are illustrated to be circular, ¶ 0070 discloses that other shapes can be used, including rectangular, elliptical and any other suitable shape).
Regarding claim 6, Bates discloses that the first medial reservoir is aligned with the second medial reservoir along a medial axis at a medial side of the sole structure and the first lateral reservoir is aligned with the second lateral reservoir along a lateral axis at a lateral side of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 7, Bates discloses that the first segment and the second segment are disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 18 above; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 8, Bates discloses that each U-shaped segment is separated from an adjacent U-shaped segment by a web area (absent further distinguishing language with respect to what constitutes a “web area”, the base bottom surface #113 in Fig. 18 has a web area that exists in between the adjacent U-shaped first and second segments; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 9, Bates discloses that the sole structure further comprises a third segment including a third lateral reservoir, a third medial reservoir, and a third central reservoir extending between and fluidly coupling the third lateral reservoir and the third medial reservoir, the third lateral reservoir, the third medial reservoir, and the third central reservoir cooperating to define a third U-shape that is aligned with the first U-shape and the second U-shape (see annotated Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 10, Bates discloses that the sole structure of claim 1 is incorporated into an article of footwear (see Fig. 1 of Bates).
Regarding independent claim 11, Bates discloses a sole structure (#100; see Fig. 18 embodiment) for an article of footwear (see Fig. 1, Title, Abstract of Bates; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), the sole structure comprising: a plurality of U-shaped segments disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 18 above, which identifies several segments; Examiner notes that the term "segment" is very broad and merely means "one of the parts into which something is divided; a division, portion, or section". (Defn. No. 1 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), each U-shaped segment comprising: a lateral reservoir positioned adjacent a lateral side of the sole structure, a medial reservoir positioned adjacent a medial side of the sole structure, and a central reservoir extending between and fluidly coupling the lateral reservoir and the medial reservoir (see annotated Fig. 18 above; all components of the sole structure are adjacent one another; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); fluidly connected by passageways #322 (see Fig. 18); ¶ 0083-0084 of Bates), the U-shaped segments being arranged in series along a longitudinal axis of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 18 above, which shows the segments arranged in a series relative to one another longitudinally).
Regarding claim 12, Bates discloses that the longitudinal axis of the sole structure is a central longitudinal axis that extends through the central reservoir of each U-shaped segment (see annotated Fig. 18 above, which shows a central longitudinal axis to pass through all the identified central reservoirs).
Regarding claim 13, Bates discloses that U-shaped segments of the plurality of U-shaped segments are oriented such that their open ends face the same direction (see annotated Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 14, Bates discloses that at least one of the medial reservoir, the lateral reservoir, and the central reservoir of at least one U-shaped segment of the plurality of U-shaped segments is elongate (since the identified reservoirs have some measurable length, they are “elongate” inasmuch as has been defined in the claim; it is further noted that Bates discloses that while the pods are illustrated to be circular, ¶ 0070 discloses that other shapes can be used, including rectangular, elliptical and any other suitable shape).
Regarding claim 16, Bates discloses that the medial reservoir of a first U-shaped segment of the plurality of U-shaped segments is aligned with the medial reservoir of a second U-shaped segment of the plurality of U-shaped segments along a medial axis at a medial side of the sole structure and the lateral reservoir of the first U-shaped segment is aligned with the lateral reservoir of the second U-shaped segment along a lateral axis at a lateral side of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 17, Bates discloses that the sole structure further comprises a chamber disposed in a heel region of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 18, Bates discloses that each U-shaped segment of the plurality of U-shaped segments is separated from an adjacent U-shaped segment by a web area (absent further distinguishing language with respect to what constitutes a “web area”, the base bottom surface #113 in Fig. 18 has a web area that exists in between the adjacent U-shaped first and second segments; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 19, Bates discloses that U-shaped segments of the plurality of U-shaped segments are in fluid communication with one another (Fig. 18 shows passageways connected among the different identified segments, on the medial side).
Regarding claim 20, Bates discloses that the sole structure of claim 11 is incorporated into an article of footwear (see Fig. 1 of Bates).
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively above, and further in view of Peyton (US 2017/0265564).
Regarding claim 5, Bates teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches that at least one of the first medial reservoir, the second medial reservoir, the first lateral reservoir, the second lateral reservoir, the first central reservoir, and the second central reservoir can be any suitable shape (¶ 0070 of Bates), but is silent to specifically disclosing that the shape can be defined as a prolate hemispheroid shape.
Peyton teaches a sole with a bladder element. Peyton teaches that the cross-section of its bladder has subchambers that may have what appears to be a prolate hemispheroid shape (see Fig. 32 cross-section in Peyton, wherein chambers #72C and #72E have a flat top surface and hemispherical bottom surface, the top and bottom boundaries of the bladder and chambers is formed by a top barrier sheet #46 and a bottom barrier sheet #48 (¶ 0079 of Peyton)).
Bates and Peyton teach analogous inventions in the field of bladders for footwear soles. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the flattened, hemispherical shape taught by Peyton’s subchambers #72C/E as the shape of choice for the pods of Bates for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) in order to provide an alternative shape that may shorten the height profile of the sole (due to the flattening of the top half) and so that the upper surface (which would be relatively flat) may be more easily adhered to the overlying structure in the sole.
Regarding claim 15, Bates teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as set forth above, and teaches that at least one of the medial reservoir, the lateral reservoir, and the central reservoir of at least one U-shaped segment of the plurality of U-shaped segments can be any suitable shape (¶ 0070 of Bates), but is silent to specifically disclosing that the shape can be defined as a prolate hemispheroid shape.
Peyton teaches a sole with a bladder element. Peyton teaches that the cross-section of its bladder has subchambers that may have what appears to be a prolate hemispheroid shape (see Fig. 32 cross-section in Peyton, wherein chambers #72C and #72E have a flat top surface and hemispherical bottom surface, the top and bottom boundaries of the bladder and chambers is formed by a top barrier sheet #46 and a bottom barrier sheet #48 (¶ 0079 of Peyton)).
Bates and Peyton teach analogous inventions in the field of bladders for footwear soles. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the flattened, hemispherical shape taught by Peyton’s subchambers #72C/E as the shape of choice for the pods of Bates for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) in order to provide an alternative shape that may shorten the height profile of the sole (due to the flattening of the top half) and so that the upper surface (which would be relatively flat) may be more easily adhered to the overlying structure in the sole.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,583,030.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited patent’s claims essentially encompass the equivalent subject matter of the present application’s claims.
Claim
(present)
Claim
(cited patent)
Comments
1
11
Present application’s “segment” is equivalent to cited patent’s “rib” language.
The language is substantially met, with a main difference being that “U-shape” is not described in such terms in the cited patent. However, equivalent language is recited for the medial reservoir, lateral reservoir and central reservoir alignment (with each of the first and second segments), with the central reservoir being described as being “offset forwardly” of the medial and lateral reservoirs, which would yield a U-shape among them.
2
14
Self-explanatory
3
11
Since each segment’s U-shape is open to the same direction, the forward offset described in claim 11 of the cited patent would yield a same open face direction when comparing the two segments’ reservoirs’ collective shapes.
4
12
Having a major axis and a minor axis would yield an “elongate” shape
5
5
(obvious-type)
Cited patent’s independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-19 do not recite a prolate hemispheroid shape. However, claim 5 of the cited patent does recite that the reservoirs have a prolate hemispheroid shape, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the prolate hemispheroid shape recited in claim 5 of the cited patent as the shape of choice for the reservoirs of claim 5 of the present application for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) in order to provide an alternative shape that may shorten the height profile of the sole (due to the flattening of the top half) and so that the upper surface (which would be relatively flat) may be more easily adhered to the overlying structure in the sole.
6
12
Self-explanatory
7
11
Self-explanatory
8
1
(obvious type)
Cited patent’s independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-19 do not recite a web area separating the segments from one another. However, claim 1 of the cited patent does recite that there is a web area that extends between all of its segments, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the web area recited in claim 1 of the cited patent in between and separating the first and second segments of claim 8 of the present application in order to provide a connecting structure that would assist in connecting the segments together and to the surrounding sole layers for a more comprehensive adhesion therebetween.
9
14
Self-explanatory
11
11
See comment for claim 1 above
12
14
Self-explanatory
13
11
See comment for claim 3 above
14
12
See comment for claim 4 above
15
5
(obvious type)
Cited patent’s independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-19 do not recite a prolate hemispheroid shape. However, claim 5 of the cited patent does recite that the reservoirs have a prolate hemispheroid shape, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the prolate hemispheroid shape recited in claim 5 of the cited patent as the shape of choice for the reservoirs of claim 15 of the present application for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) in order to provide an alternative shape that may shorten the height profile of the sole (due to the flattening of the top half) and so that the upper surface (which would be relatively flat) may be more easily adhered to the overlying structure in the sole.
16
12
Self-explanatory
17
11
“chamber” in present application is “second chamber” in cited patent’s claim 11
18
1
(obvious type)
Cited patent’s independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-19 do not recite a web area separating the segments from one another. However, claim 1 of the cited patent does recite that there is a web area that extends between all of its segments, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the web area recited in claim 1 of the cited patent in between and separating the plurality of segments of claim 18 of the present application in order to provide a connecting structure that would assist in connecting the segments together and to the surrounding sole layers for a more comprehensive adhesion therebetween.
19
15
Self-explanatory
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,583,030 in view of Bates.
The cited patent’s claims do not positively recite that there is an article of footwear that incorporates the sole structure of claim 1 (regarding claim 10 of the present application) or claim 11 (regarding claim 20 of the present application). However, claims 1 and 11 of the present application do recite that the sole structure is “for an article of footwear”. Bates, as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 102 section above teaches that its sole structure is part of an article of footwear, and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the sole structures of claims 1 and 11 into articles of footwear, as taught by Bates in order for the sole structure to have a housing to be used by the wearer, and further since the present application’s claims 1 and 11 indicate that the sole structure is intended for an article of footwear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference cited on the PTO-892 is an issued patent that is related to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732