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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 3: the word “or” should be changed to “and”, since this is a Markush-type listing of elements
Claim 8, line 2: “adapted to be” should be added before “in fluid communication”
Claim 9, line 2: “a plantar surface of a user’s foot” should recite “the plantar surface of the user’s foot”
Claim 9, lines 8-9: “a plantar surface of a user’s foot” should recite “the plantar surface of the user’s foot”
Claim 10, line 2: “a user’s foot” should recite “the user’s foot”
Claim 10, lines 3-4: “a user’s foot” should recite “the user’s foot”
Claim 12, line 2: “adapted to be” should be added before “in fluid communication”
Claim 12, line 4: “adapted to be” should be added before “in fluid communication”
Claim 12, line 4: “an external environment” should recite “the external environment”
Claim 13, lines 5-6: “a plantar surface of a user’s foot” should recite “the plantar surface of the user’s foot”
Claim 15, line 2: “a user’s foot” should recite “the user’s foot”
Claim 15, lines 3-4: “a user’s foot” should recite “the user’s foot”
Claim 23, line 2: “a plantar surface of a user’s foot” should recite “the plantar surface of the user’s foot”
Claim 23, lines 8-9: “a plantar surface of a user’s foot” should recite “the plantar surface of the user’s foot”
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-6, 8-12 and 21-24 at least due to dependency from claim 1) is 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 1, Applicant recites “a first movable plunger that moves to change the first solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration” (lines 4-6), which is an active method step within a product claim, which is improper. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “a first movable plunger that is configured to move to change the first solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration”.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “wherein the first fluid-filled bladder is configured to support a first portion of [the] plantar surface of [the] user's foot” (emphasis added; see Claim Objection section above regarding changing of “a” to “the”). In claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, Applicant already refers to “at least a portion of a plantar surface of a user’s foot”. It is unclear if “a first portion” is intended to be a portion within the “at least a portion” or should be interpreted as the same as the “at least a portion”. Correction is required. Examiner suggests amending the claim as follows, and will interpret the claim in such a manner: wherein the at least a portion of the user’s foot’s plantar surface includes a first portion ” (resulting in final language of “wherein the at least a portion of the user’s foot’s plantar surface includes a first portion”). Examiner notes that the same issue is present in claim 23 (lines 1-2), which is likewise indefinite, and similar language (and interpretation) is suggested therefor.
Further regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “a second fluid-filled bladder configured to support a second portion of [the] plantar surface of [the] user’s foot” (lines 8-9). Similarly as above, it is unclear if the second portion is part of the existing “at least a portion”. Correction is required. Examiner suggests, in conjunction with the above-paragraph’s suggested language, reciting: “wherein the at least a portion of the user’s foot’s plantar surface includes a first portion and a second portion” and subsequently referring to “the second portion” when describing the functional language of the second fluid-filled bladder. Examiner notes that the same issue is present in claim 23 (lines 8-9), which is likewise indefinite, and similar language (and interpretation) is suggested therefor.
Further regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “a second movable plunger that moves to change the second solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration” (lines 5-7), which is an active method step within a product claim, which is improper. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “a second movable plunger that is configured to move to change the second solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration”. Examiner notes that the same issue is present in claim 23 (lines 5-7), which is likewise indefinite, and similar language (and interpretation) is suggested therefor.
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 1-5, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 23 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,166,523.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same subject matter. See the table below showing claim associations between the present application and the cited patent.
Claims of present application
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
13
15
Claims of cited patent
1, 11
4
5
5
6
1,11
3,14
4
1
3
Claims of present application
16
17
23
24
Claims of cited patent
4
3
4
5
Claims 1-4, 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,082.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same subject matter. See the table below showing claim associations between the present application and the cited patent.
Claims of present application
1
2
3
4
9
11
Claims of cited patent
1
2
3
4
1
7
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,550,979.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same subject matter. See the table below showing claim associations between the present application and the cited patent.
Claims of present application
1
3
5
8
9
12
Claims of cited patent
1,4,15
5
18
1,7
2
3
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 and 8, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong et al. (hereinafter “Wong”) (WO 2008/051164 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wong discloses a foot support system (sole structures shown in Figs. 11-13 include a support system capable of being used with feet; Examiner notes that the adjective term “foot”, at least in the context of “foot support system” does not require any particular structure specific to a foot, only capability to be used to support a hypothetical foot) for an article of footwear (see Figs. 11-13; ¶ 0026 recites that the device can be used in shoes; Examiner notes that the phrase “for an article of footwear” does not require the presence of an actual article of footwear, giving importance to the intended use term “for”), the foot support system comprising: a first solenoid valve (Fig. 1 shows solenoids #108; ¶ 0025 describes multiple solenoids; ¶ 0003, 0014, 0015 further describe the solenoids, including each having a plunger, which is shown in cross-sectional views in Figs. 2-5 in various operational sequences) including a gas intake port in fluid communication with a gas source (Fig. 3 shows an inflation sequence, with port shown between inlet #102, plunger (i.e. part of solenoid) and the valve body’s feed channel #202; fluid pump device (shown in Fig. 10) is a gas source in the system) and a gas outlet port (Fig. 5 shows a deflation sequence, with port shown between outlet #104, plunger (i.e. part of solenoid) and the valve body’s feed channel #202), wherein the first solenoid valve includes a first movable plunger (as noted above, all the solenoids are disclosed to have a plunger) that moves to change the first solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration (Fig. 3 compared to Fig. 5 show inflation and deflation configurations); a first fluid-filled bladder (air bag #1004 in Fig. 12) configured to support at least a portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot (as shown in Fig. 12, it is part of a sole structure, which would support at least a portion of a hypothetical user’s foot’s plantar surface; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the first fluid-filled bladder includes a gas port (see ¶ 0026); and a first fluid line connecting the gas outlet port of first solenoid valve and the gas port of the first fluid-filled bladder (¶ 0027 describes fluid flow tubes, which are fluid lines connecting the ports, bladder and solenoid to one another).
Regarding claim 8, Wong discloses that the first solenoid valve further includes a gas discharge port in fluid communication with an external environment at which the foot support system is located (Fig. 5 shows deflation sequence, wherein fluid is released from the interior to the exterior (i.e. there is a gas discharge port present, otherwise fluid would not be able to be released)).
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 (claims 1-6, 9 and 10 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitterle et al. (hereinafter “Mitterle”) (WO 2017/101902 A1; please refer to the English machine translation, which is included as a 24-page document in the file wrapper of a parent application 16/105,170 as NPL on Feb. 23, 2021).
Regarding independent claim 1, Mitterle discloses a foot support system for an article of footwear (¶ 0002 describes using the variable chamber system in a footwear sole; Examiner notes that the phrase “for an article of footwear” is a statement of intended use and an article of footwear is not actually required to be present in the prior art to meet the limitation), the foot support system comprising: a first solenoid valve (see annotated Fig. 3 below; the various valves can be of the solenoid type (see Figs. 4-7, wherein reference number 7 indicates “solenoid” on page 17 of the NPL translation document)) including a gas intake port in fluid communication with a gas source (see annotated Fig. 3 below; first gas intake port is configured to receive fluid from the compressor chamber #A (i.e. gas source)) and a gas outlet port (see annotated Fig. 3 below; “first gas outlet port of first solenoid valve”), wherein the first solenoid valve includes a first movable plunger that moves to change the first solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration (plug #4 is a movable plunger to allow ingress and egress of fluid through the valve); a first fluid-filled bladder (see annotated Fig. 3 below; “first fluid-filled bladder chamber”) configured to support at least a portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot (see annotated Fig. 3 below; Fig. 9 illustrates chambers B and C within a sole-shape, wherein the chambers B and C are both positioned to be capable of supporting at least a first arbitrary portion of a hypothetical foot’s plantar surface), wherein the first fluid-filled bladder includes a gas port (see annotated Fig. 3 below; “first gas port of first fluid-filled bladder chamber”); and a first fluid line connecting the gas outlet port of first solenoid valve and the gas port of the first fluid-filled bladder (Fig. 3 shows fluid lines between the various points of the system, including between the first gas outlet port of the first solenoid valve and the first gas port of the first fluid-filled bladder chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
826
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mitterle discloses that there is a controller for controlling operation of the first solenoid valve; and a pressure sensor for determining pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder and providing sensed pressure information to the controller (see ¶ 0026 of the Mitterle translation, which indicates pressure sensors are included that provide the control unit (i.e. controller) with data on the internal pressure of at least one of the chambers).
Regarding claim 3, Mitterle discloses that there is an input device for receiving input data in electronic communication with the controller (¶ 0041 describes a system that allows the user to input data either monodirectionally (i.e. user input) or bidirectionally (i.e. user input, as well as system in sole can communicate information back to user) via transmitter, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.), wherein the input device is configured to receive user input including at least one of: (a) a desired pressure level for the first fluid-filled bladder and (b) a desire to change pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder (¶ 0114 describes pressure sensor data as being used to influence control unit’s operations; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense, wherein the programming logic of the input device would at least be capable of being programmed to perform various functions).
Regarding claim 4, Mitterle discloses that there is a controller for controlling operation of the first solenoid valve (see the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above, which addresses this limitation); and an input device for receiving input data in electronic communication with the controller, wherein the input device is configured to receive user input including at least one of: (a) a desired pressure level for the first fluid-filled bladder or (b) a desire to change pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder (see the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 3 above, which addresses this limitation).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mitterle discloses that there is an electronic communication device in electronic communication with the input device for providing the input data to the controller (claim 5), wherein the electronic communication device includes at least one member selected from the group consisting of: a personal computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet computer, or a mobile telephone (claim 6) (¶ 0041 and 0114 describe transmission of data via components that would require at least one of a personal computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet computer or a mobile telephone to operate, absent further definition as to what would constitute “a personal computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet computer or a mobile telephone”; i.e. Bluetooth and Wi-Fi require computing devices to interpret such signals).
Regarding claim 9, Mitterle discloses that the first fluid-filled bladder is configured to support a first portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot (as noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1), and wherein the foot support system further comprises: a second solenoid valve (see annotated Fig. 3 above) including a gas intake port in fluid communication with the gas source and a gas outlet port (the valve itself has intake/outlet ports that are in fluid communication with compressor (i.e. gas source)), wherein the second solenoid valve includes a second movable plunger that moves to change the second solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration (the valves are solenoid valves, as noted above, so they have the respective movable plungers to change between inflation and deflation); a second fluid-filled bladder configured to support a second portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot (see annotated Fig. 3 above; Fig. 9 illustrates chambers B and C within a sole-shape, wherein the chambers B and C are both positioned to be capable of supporting at least an arbitrary forefoot portion of a hypothetical foot’s plantar surface; chamber A is positioned to support an arbitrary heel portion of the plantar surface), wherein the first fluid-filled bladder includes a gas port (as noted above); and a second fluid line connecting the gas outlet port of second solenoid valve and the gas port of the second fluid-filled bladder (see annotated Fig. 3 above, which shows several fluid lines connecting the components).
Regarding claim 10, Mitterle discloses that the first fluid-filled bladder is configured to support at least a portion of a heel area of a user's foot and the second fluid-filled bladder is configured to support at least a portion of a forefoot area of a user's foot (as addressed in the paragraph regarding claim 9 above).
Regarding independent claim 13, Mitterle discloses a foot support system for an article of footwear (¶ 0002 describes using the variable chamber system in a footwear sole; Examiner notes that the phrase “for an article of footwear” is a statement of intended use and an article of footwear is not actually required to be present in the prior art to meet the limitation), the foot support system comprising: a first fluid-filled bladder (see annotated Fig. 3 above; “first fluid-filled bladder chamber”) configured to support at least a first portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot (see annotated Fig. 3 above; Fig. 9 illustrates chambers B and C within a sole-shape, wherein the chambers B and C are both positioned to be capable of supporting at least a first arbitrary portion of a hypothetical foot’s plantar surface), wherein the first fluid-filled bladder includes a first gas port (see annotated Fig. 3 above); a second fluid-filled bladder configured to support at least a second portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot (see annotated Fig. 3 above; Fig. 9 illustrates chambers B and C within a sole-shape, wherein the chambers B and C are both positioned to be capable of supporting at least an arbitrary forefoot portion of a hypothetical foot’s plantar surface; chamber A is positioned to support an arbitrary heel portion of the plantar surface), wherein the second fluid-filled bladder includes a second gas port (see annotated Fig. 3 above); a first solenoid valve including a gas inlet port, a first gas outlet port, and a second gas outlet port (see annotated Fig. 3 above); a first fluid line connecting the gas inlet port of the first solenoid valve with a gas source (see annotated Fig. 3 above; the path between “A” and the first solenoid valve is a first fluid line); a second fluid line connected to the first gas outlet port of the first solenoid valve and in fluid communication with the first gas port of the first fluid-filled bladder (a fluid path exists between the first outlet port of the first solenoid valve and the first gas port of the first bladder, this path including the second solenoid valve in the figure, as annotated); and a third fluid line connected to the second gas outlet port of the first solenoid valve and in fluid communication with the second gas port of the second fluid-filled bladder (a third fluid path exists between the second gas outlet port of the first solenoid valve and the second bladder, on the left side of the figure).
Regarding claim 15, Mitterle discloses that the first fluid-filled bladder is configured to support at least a portion of a heel area of a user's foot and the second fluid-filled bladder is configured to support at least a portion of a forefoot area of a user's foot (as explained in the paragraph above regarding claim 13; see Fig. 9 of Mitterle, chamber A represents a first bladder in the heel area; either of chambers B or C is in the forefoot area as a second bladder).
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 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 (claims 8, 11 and 12 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitterle as applied to claims 1 (regarding claims 8, 11 and 12), 9 (regarding claims 11 and 12) and 13 (regarding claims 16 and 17) above.
Regarding claim 8, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but is silent as to whether the first solenoid valve further includes a gas discharge port in fluid communication with an external environment at which the foot support system is located. However, Mitterle acknowledges that some systems may be designed so that fluid can escape to the outside (see ¶ 0018), and therefore 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 included a gas discharge port in the first solenoid valve that is in fluid communication with an external environment so that the system would be able to allow fluid to escape to the outside, as such is suggested by Mitterle in ¶ 0018.
Regarding claim 11, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as set forth above, and further discloses that there is a controller for controlling operation of the first solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve, a first pressure sensor for determining pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder and providing sensed pressure information in the first fluid-filled bladder to the controller, and a second pressure sensor for determining pressure in the second fluid-filled bladder (see ¶ 0026 of the Mitterle translation, which indicates pressure sensors are included that provide the control unit (i.e. controller) with data on the internal pressure of at least one of the chambers), but does not explicitly disclose that the pressure sensors provide sensed pressure information in the all of the bladders to the controller (i.e. Mitterle states “at least one” of the chambers has its pressure data analyzed). However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for all of the pressure sensors’ data to have been used to determine the pressure in their respective bladders in order for the system to be able to tailor the pressure as desired for each bladder’s pressure and cushioning level, and further since “at least one” somewhat suggests that more than “only” one of the chambers may have also used its pressure sensor data to adjust the pressure profile.
Regarding claim 12, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as set forth above, but is silent as to whether the first solenoid valve further includes a gas discharge port in fluid communication with an external environment at which the foot support system is located, and wherein the second solenoid valve further includes a gas discharge port in fluid communication with an external environment at which the foot support system is located. However, Mitterle acknowledges that some systems may be designed so that fluid can escape to the outside (see ¶ 0018), and therefore 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 included a gas discharge port in the first and second solenoid valves that are in fluid communication with an external environment so that the system would be able to allow fluid to escape to the outside from either or both of the bladders, as such a capability for escape of fluid to the outside is suggested by Mitterle in ¶ 0018.
Regarding claim 14, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, but does not teach that the second fluid-filled bladder is not in fluid communication with the first fluid-filled bladder (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 above, there is fluid communication via intervening valves). However, Mitterle teaches an alternative arrangement (see Fig. 2 of Mitterle), wherein there would be no fluid communication between chambers B and C (i.e. first and second bladders) due to the presence of the valve at #5, which would only allow fluid to pass from A to B, or from A to C, but not from B to C, 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 utilized this other embodiment of chambers in Fig. 2 in order to provide an alternative arrangement wherein only a single solenoid valve would be needed, and cost would be reduced in favor of a less complex system.
Regarding claim 16, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and further discloses that there is a controller for controlling operation of the first solenoid valve, a first pressure sensor for determining pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder and providing sensed pressure information in the first fluid-filled bladder to the controller, and a second pressure sensor for determining pressure in the second fluid-filled bladder (see ¶ 0026 of the Mitterle translation, which indicates pressure sensors are included that provide the control unit (i.e. controller) with data on the internal pressure of at least one of the chambers), but does not explicitly disclose that the pressure sensors provide sensed pressure information in the all of the bladders to the controller (i.e. Mitterle states “at least one” of the chambers has its pressure data analyzed). However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for all of the pressure sensors’ data to have been used to determine the pressure in their respective bladders in order for the system to be able to tailor the pressure as desired for each bladder’s pressure and cushioning level, and further since “at least one” somewhat suggests that more than “only” one of the chambers may have also used its pressure sensor data to adjust the pressure profile.
Regarding claim 17, the modified system of Mitterle (i.e. Mitterle as modified to address claim 16 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as set forth above, and further that there is an input device for receiving input data in electronic communication with the controller (¶ 0041 describes a system that allows the user to input data either monodirectionally (i.e. user input) or bidirectionally (i.e. user input, as well as system in sole can communicate information back to user) via transmitter, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.), wherein the input device is configured to receive user input including at least one of: (a) a desired pressure level for the first fluid-filled bladder, (b) a desire to change pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder, (c) a desired pressure level for the second fluid-filled bladder, and (d) a desire to change pressure in the second fluid-filled bladder (¶ 0114 describes pressure sensor data as being used to influence control unit’s operations; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense, wherein the programming logic of the input device would at least be capable of being programmed to perform various functions).
Claims 21-24, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitterle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vock et al. (hereinafter “Vock”) (USPN 7,627,451).
Regarding claim 21, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches that there is a controller for controlling operation of the first solenoid valve, and a pressure sensor for determining pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder and providing sensed pressure information to the controller (see ¶ 0026 of the Mitterle translation, which indicates pressure sensors are included that provide the control unit (i.e. controller) with data on the internal pressure of at least one of the chambers), but is silent as to whether the pressure sensor is provided in the first fluid line, as required by the claim.
Vock teaches a pressure (i.e. weight) measuring device (#970) in a footwear sole (see Fig. 61), wherein there is a pressure sensor (#976A) in a bottom end of a fluid line (conduit #975), wherein the components are coupled with a processor to feed back measured information to provide a weight measurement (Col. 55, Line 64 through Col. 56, Line 10 of Vock).
Mitterle and Vock teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear soles with pressure sensing devices incorporated therein. 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 placed the pressure sensors of the Mitterle system into the fluid lines thereof, as taught by Vock, for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) allowing the entire chamber to be completely only filled with fluid, with no electronic components therein (such as a pressure sensor) that could potentially become damaged during use, or vice versa with the pressure sensor potentially damaging the lining of the chamber-defining material, and further since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 22, the modified system of Mitterle (i.e. Mitterle in view of Vock, as applied to claim 21 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 21, as set forth above, and further that there is an input device for receiving input data in electronic communication with the controller (¶ 0041 describes a system that allows the user to input data either monodirectionally (i.e. user input) or bidirectionally (i.e. user input, as well as system in sole can communicate information back to user) via transmitter, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.), wherein the input device is configured to receive user input including at least one of: (a) a desired pressure level for the first fluid-filled bladder and (b) a desire to change pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder (¶ 0114 describes pressure sensor data as being used to influence control unit’s operations; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense, wherein the programming logic of the input device would at least be capable of being programmed to perform various functions).
Regarding claim 23, Mitterle teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches that the first fluid-filled bladder is configured to support a first portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot, and wherein the foot support system further comprises: a second solenoid valve including a gas intake port in fluid communication with the gas source and a gas outlet port, wherein the second solenoid valve includes a second movable plunger that moves to change the second solenoid valve at least between an inflation configuration and a deflation configuration; a second fluid-filled bladder configured to support a second portion of a plantar surface of a user's foot, wherein the first fluid-filled bladder includes a gas port; a second fluid line connecting the gas outlet port of second solenoid valve and the gas port of the second fluid-filled bladder (see the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 9 above, which addresses these limitations); a controller for controlling operation of the first solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve; a first pressure sensor for determining pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder and providing sensed pressure information in the first fluid-filled bladder to the controller; and renders obvious a second pressure sensor for determining pressure in the second fluid-filled bladder and providing sensed pressure information in the second fluid-filled bladder to the controller (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11 above, which addresses these limitations), but is silent as to whether the first and second pressure sensors are provided in the first and second fluid lines, as required by the claim.
Vock teaches a pressure (i.e. weight) measuring device (#970) in a footwear sole (see Fig. 61), wherein there is a pressure sensor (#976A) in a bottom end of a fluid line (conduit #975), wherein the components are coupled with a processor to feed back measured information to provide a weight measurement (Col. 55, Line 64 through Col. 56, Line 10 of Vock).
Mitterle and Vock teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear soles with pressure sensing devices incorporated therein. 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 placed the pressure sensors of the Mitterle system into the fluid lines thereof, as taught by Vock, for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) allowing the entire chamber to be completely only filled with fluid, with no electronic components therein (such as a pressure sensor) that could potentially become damaged during use, or vice versa with the pressure sensor potentially damaging the lining of the chamber-defining material, and further since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 24, the modified system of Mitterle (i.e. Mitterle in view of Vock, as applied to claim 23 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 23, as set forth above, and further that there is an input device for receiving input data in electronic communication with the controller (¶ 0041 describes a system that allows the user to input data either monodirectionally (i.e. user input) or bidirectionally (i.e. user input, as well as system in sole can communicate information back to user) via transmitter, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.), wherein the input device is configured to receive user input including at least one of: (a) a desired pressure level for the first fluid-filled bladder, (b) a desire to change pressure in the first fluid-filled bladder, (c) a desired pressure level for the second fluid-filled bladder, and (d) a desire to change pressure in the second fluid-filled bladder (¶ 0114 describes pressure sensor data as being used to influence control unit’s operations; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense, wherein the programming logic of the input device would at least be capable of being programmed to perform various functions).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights