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 C in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 12/17/2025 is accepted and hereby entered.
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 1-3, 6-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,487,796 B1 to Avar.
For claim 1, Avar discloses a sole structure (106) for an article of footwear including an upper (102), the sole structure comprising: a first outsole including a first portion disposed in a forefoot region and defining a first ground-engaging surface and a second portion disposed closer to the upper than the first portion (as best understood by applicant’s disclosure (figs. 19-20 and paragraph [0093]), the first outsole is a plurality of components having sections that are not intended for contacting the ground) (see annotated fig. 4 of Avar illustrating these features);
PNG
media_image1.png
332
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and including a substantially planar region (figs. 14-17);
a second outsole disposed in a heel region of the sole structure, defining a second ground-engaging surface, and opposing the second portion of the first outsole (see annotated fig. 4 above); and a first fluid-filled chamber (108c with voids 120c) having a first surface attached to the second portion of the first outsole (top surface of 108c) and a second surface attached to the second outsole on an opposite side of the second outsole than the second ground-engaging surface (bottom surface of 108c).
For claim 2, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber is a columnar fluid-filled chamber (col. 7, lines 4-9).
For claim 3, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first surface of the first fluid-filled chamber and the second surface of the first fluid-filled chamber are disposed on opposite sides of the first fluid-filled chamber (top and bottom surfaces of 108).
For claim 6, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, further comprising a second fluid-filled chamber (108a) having a first surface attached to the second portion of the first outsole (top surface of 108a) and a second surface attached to the second outsole on the opposite side of the second outsole than the second ground-engaging surface (bottom of 108a), the second fluid-filled chamber being spaced apart from the first fluid-filled chamber (fig. 11).
For claim 7, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 6, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber includes at least one of a different size, shape, and pressure than the first fluid-filled chamber (shape and height, fig. 11)
For claim 8, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 7, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is a columnar fluid-filled chamber (col. 7, lines 4-9).
For claim 9, Avar discloses a sole structure (106) for an article of footwear having an upper (102), the sole structure comprising: a first outsole including a first portion disposed in a forefoot region and defining a first ground-engaging surface and a second portion disposed closer to the upper than the first portion (as best understood by applicant’s disclosure (figs. 19-20 and paragraph [0093]), the first outsole is a plurality of components and having sections that are not intended for contacting the ground) (see annotated fig. 4 of Avar illustrating these features);
PNG
media_image1.png
332
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and including a substantially planar region defining a first flange (154b) and a second flange (154c); a first fluid-filled chamber having a first surface attached to the first flange (108b with voids 120b); and a second fluid-filled chamber having a second surface attached to the second flange (108c with void 120c) (col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 2).
For claim 10, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 9, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber and the second fluid-filled chamber are columnar fluid-filled chambers (col. 7, lines 4-9)
For claim 11, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 10, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber is spaced apart from the second fluid-filled chamber (fig. 11).
For claim 12, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 10, further comprising a second outsole defining a second ground-engaging surface (see annotated fig. 4 above), the first fluid-filled chamber and the second fluid-filled chamber being attached to the second outsole on an opposite side of the second outsole than the second ground-engaging surface (col. 7, lines 1-2).
For claim 15, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 9, wherein the first flange extends from the second flange in a direction toward a medial side of the sole structure (see fig. 14 wherein 154b extends in a medial direction with respect to the location of 154c).
For claim 16, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 9, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber includes at least one of a different size, shape, and pressure than the second fluid-filled chamber (shape and height, figs. 10 and 11).
For claim 17, Avar discloses a sole structure (106) for an article of footwear having an upper (102), the sole structure comprising: a first outsole including a first portion disposed in a forefoot region and defining a first ground-engaging surface and a second portion disposed in a different plane than the first portion (as best understood by applicant’s disclosure (figs. 19-20 and paragraph [0093]), the first outsole is a plurality of components and having sections that are not intended for contacting the ground) (see annotated fig. 4 of Avar illustrating these features);
PNG
media_image1.png
332
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and including a first flange (154b) and a second flange (154c); a first fluid-filled chamber having a first surface attached to the first flange (108b with voids 120b) (col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 2); and a second fluid-filled chamber having a second surface attached to the second flange (108c with void 120c) (col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 2).
For claim 18, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 17, wherein the second portion of the first outsole is substantially planar (figs. 14-17).
For claim 20, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 17, further comprising a second outsole spaced apart from and opposing the second portion of the first outsole (see annotated fig. 4 above), the first fluid-filled chamber and the second fluid-filled chamber each having a first surface attached to the second portion of the first outsole and a second surface attached to the second outsole (col. 7, lines 1-2).
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 4-5, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avar.
For claim 4, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion of the first outsole comprises a different material than the first portion of the first outsole.
However, Avar does teach heel plate 104 is preferably a material comprising polyether block copolyamide (PEBA) containing 50% short glass fiber for substantial strength and rigidity (col. 10, lines 3-13). Avar also teaches it is known in the prior art to use a conventional rubber compound for the outsole to provide wear resistance (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the ground contacting outsole material is a rubber compound for purposes of providing wear resistance to the bottom of the shoe, as taught by Avar (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). As modified, Avar would be considered as teaching the second portion of the first outsole comprises a different material than the first portion of the first outsole.
For claim 5, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion of the first outsole includes a higher rigidity than the first portion of the first outsole.
However, Avar does teach heel plate 104 is preferably a material comprising polyether block copolyamide (PEBA) containing 50% short glass fiber for substantial strength and rigidity (col. 10, lines 3-13). Avar also teaches it is known in the prior art to use a conventional rubber compound for the outsole to provide wear resistance (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the outsole material is a rubber compound for purposes of providing wear resistance to the bottom of the shoe, as taught by Avar (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). As modified, Avar would be considered as teaching the second portion of the first outsole includes a higher rigidity than the first portion of the first outsole.
For claim 13, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 9, but does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion of the first outsole comprises a different material than the first portion of the first outsole.
However, Avar does teach heel plate 104 is preferably a material comprising polyether block copolyamide (PEBA) containing 50% short glass fiber for substantial strength and rigidity (col. 10, lines 3-13). Avar also teaches it is known in the prior art to use a conventional rubber compound for the outsole to provide wear resistance (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the outsole material is a rubber compound for purposes of providing wear resistance to the bottom of the shoe, as taught by Avar (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). As modified, Avar would be considered as teaching the second portion of the first outsole comprises a different material than the first portion of the first outsole.
For claim 14, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 9, but does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion of the first outsole includes a higher rigidity than the first portion of the first outsole.
However, Avar does teach heel plate 104 is preferably a material comprising polyether block copolyamide (PEBA) containing 50% short glass fiber for substantial strength and rigidity (col. 10, lines 3-13). Avar also teaches it is known in the prior art to use a conventional rubber compound for the outsole to provide wear resistance (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the outsole material is a rubber compound for purposes of providing wear resistance to the bottom of the shoe, as taught by Avar (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). As modified, Avar would be considered as teaching the second portion of the first outsole includes a higher rigidity than the first portion of the first outsole.
For claim 19, Avar discloses the sole structure of Claim 17, but does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion of the first outsole includes at least one of a different material and a different rigidity than the first portion of the first outsole.
However, Avar does teach heel plate 104 is preferably a material comprising polyether block copolyamide (PEBA) containing 50% short glass fiber for substantial strength and rigidity (col. 10, lines 3-13). Avar also teaches it is known in the prior art to use a conventional rubber compound for the outsole to provide wear resistance (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the outsole materials is a rubber compound for purposes of providing wear resistance to the bottom of the shoe, as taught by Avar (col. 2, lines 44-46 of Avar). As modified, Avar would be considered as teaching wherein the second portion of the first outsole includes at least one of a different material and a different rigidity than the first portion of the first outsole.
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