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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11-04-2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected because they recites limitations “a bladder disposed between the upper cushioning element a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure”. The limitations are vague since it is not clear what structures are.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beers (2011/0192053).
Regarding claim 1, Beers discloses a sole structure (figs 1-87) for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising:
an upper cushioning element (member 31) extending from a forefoot region of the sole structure to a heel region of the sole structure;
a bladder (member 33) disposed between the upper cushioning element a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure, the bladder extending from the forefoot region to the heel region (figs 3-4); and
an outsole (member 32) including a first surface defining the ground-engaging surface (bottom side) and a second surface (top side) disposed on an opposite side of the outsole than the first surface, the second surface including a first portion in contact with the bladder and a second portion spaced apart from the bladder (figs 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 2, Beers discloses first portion is disposed in the forefoot region (where the balder contacts the outsole) and the second portion is disposed in the heel region (fig 7F, where the bladder not in contact the outsole).
Regarding claim 5, Beers discloses the bladder includes a substantially planar portion disposed in the heel region of the sole structure (fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Beers discloses the substantially planar portion includes a first surface in contact with the upper cushioning element and a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the bladder than the first surface (fig 2).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cortez et al. (2016/0120262).
Regarding claim 11, Beers discloses a sole structure (figs 1-36) for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising:
an upper cushioning element (member 1218);
a bladder (member 1216) disposed between the upper cushioning element a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure, the bladder extending from a forefoot region of the sole structure to a heel region of the sole structure (fig 14);
a lower cushioning element (member 1214) disposed on an opposite side of the bladder than the upper cushioning element; and
an outsole (member 1286) including a first surface defining the ground-engaging surface and a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the outsole than the first surface, the second surface including a first portion in contact with the bladder and a second portion in contact with the lower cushioning element (fig 36).
Regarding claim 12, Beers discloses first portion is disposed in the forefoot region and the second portion is disposed in a midfoot region of the sole structure (fig 10).
Regarding claim 13, Beers discloses the bladder includes a convex surface in contact with the second surface of the outsole in the forefoot region (fig 9).
Regarding claim 14, Beers discloses the bladder includes a concave surface in contact with the upper cushioning element in the forefoot region (fig 9).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers (2011/0192053) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Cortez et al. (2016/0120262).
Regarding claims 3-4, Beers teaches all limitations except the bladder includes a convex surface in contact with the second surface of the outsole in the forefoot region, wherein the bladder includes a concave surface in contact with the upper cushioning element in the forefoot region.
Cortez teaches a sole having a bladder includes a convex surface in contact with the second surface of the outsole in the forefoot region, wherein the bladder includes a concave surface in contact with the upper cushioning element in the forefoot region (fig 9, member 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the bladder of Beers by using the convex and concave surfaces of Cortez in order to provide desired impact force absorption.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Beers teaches all limitations except a lower cushioning element disposed on an opposite side of the bladder than the upper cushioning element, the second surface of the substantially planar portion in contact with the lower cushioning element (fig 40, member 1614).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Beers by adding a lower cushioning of Cortez in order to provide more impact force absorption.
Regarding claim 10, the modified sole Beers-Cortez discloses the upper cushioning element (Cortez, fig 36, member 1218) is spaced apart from and faces the lower cushioning element across a gap at a posterior end of the sole structure (Cortez, fig 36, member 1214).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers (2011/0192053) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kita et al. (2006/0137227).
Regarding claim 8, Beers teaches all limitations except the bladder is exposed at the ground-engaging surface in the heel region (fig 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Beers by exposing the bladder at the heel region, as taught by Kita, in order for enhancing cushioning properties and bendability
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez et al. (2016/0120262) in view of Beers (2011/0192053).
Regarding claim 15, Cortez teaches all limitations except the bladder includes a substantially planar portion disposed in the heel region of the sole structure.
Beers teaches a bladder having a substantially planar portion disposed in the heel region of the sole structure (fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Cortez by using a substantially planar portion at the heel area, as taught by Beers, in order to enhance comfort for the shoe.
Regarding claim 16, the modified sole Cortez-Beers discloses the substantially planar portion includes a first surface in contact with the upper cushioning element and a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the bladder than the first surface (Beers, fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified sole Cortez-Beers discloses the second surface of the substantially planar portion is in contact with the lower cushioning element (Cortez, fig 49).
Regarding claim 19, the modified sole Cortez-Beers discloses the bladder includes an arcuate shape from the forefoot region to a midfoot region of the sole structure (Cortez, fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified sole Cortez-Beers discloses the upper cushioning element is spaced apart from and faces the lower cushioning element across a gap at a posterior end of the sole structure (Cortez, fig 1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers (2011/0192053) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kita et al. (2006/0137227).
Regarding claim 18, the modified sole Cortez-Beers teaches all of the limitations and Kita teaches the bladder is exposed at the ground-engaging surface in the heel region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole of Cortez by exposing the bladder at the heel region, as taught by Kita, in order for enhancing cushioning properties and bendability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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 D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights