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 02-12-2026 and 06-15-2026 are 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 § 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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derderian et al. (4,535,553).
Regarding claim 1, Derderian discloses a sole structure (figs 1-6) for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising:
one or more support structures (fig 4, member 22) each including a base (member 26), a platform (member 42) spaced vertically apart from the base, and a plurality of struts (member 32 and 36) extending between the base and the platform; and
one or more cushioning elements (member 224) each formed of a foam material and disposed on the platform of one of the one or more support structures (fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Derderian discloses the one or more support structures includes a first support structure and a second support structure, and the one or more cushioning elements includes a first cushioning element disposed on the platform of the first support structure and a second cushioning element formed separately from the first cushioning element and disposed on the platform of the second support structure (fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Derderian discloses the first cushioning element defines a first thickness and the second cushioning element defines a second thickness different from the first thickness (fig 2, member 22a is thinner toward the toe area).
Regarding claim 4, Derderian discloses the first cushioning element includes a first foam material having a first density and the second cushioning element includes a second foam material having a second density different from the first density (col 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 5, Derderian discloses each of the one or more support structures defines an interior void between the plurality of struts, and at least one of the one or more support structures includes an internal foam component (fig 1, member 24) disposed within the interior void and integrally formed with the one or more cushioning elements.
Regarding claim 6, Derderian discloses an external foam component disposed adjacent to an exterior perimeter of the plurality of struts of at least one of the one or more support structures and integrally formed with one of the one or more cushioning elements (figs 1, member 24, col 6, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 8, Derderian discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure (figs 1-6) comprising:
a first support structure including a first base, a first platform spaced vertically apart from the first base, and a plurality of first struts extending between the first base and the first platform; a second support structure including a second base, a second platform spaced vertically apart from the second base, and a plurality of second struts extending between the second base and the second platform (figs 1 and 4, members 22);
a first cushioning element disposed adjacent to the first platform; and a second cushioning element formed separately from the first cushioning element and disposed adjacent to the second platform (fig 1, member 22a).
Regarding claim 9, Derderian discloses the first platform is disposed between the first cushioning element and the first struts, and the second platform is disposed between the second cushioning element and the second struts (fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Derderian discloses the first cushioning element defines a first thickness and the second cushioning element defines a second thickness different from the first thickness (fig 2, member 22a is thinner toward the toe area).
Regarding claim 11, Derderian discloses the first cushioning element includes a first foam material having a first density, and the second cushioning element includes a second foam material having a second density different from the first density (col 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 12, Derderian discloses the first support structure defines an interior void between the plurality of first struts and includes an internal foam component disposed within the interior void and integrally formed with the first cushioning element (figs 1, member 24, col 6, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 13, Derderian discloses an external foam component disposed adjacent to an exterior perimeter of the plurality of first struts of the first support structure and integrally formed with the first cushioning element (figs 1, member 24, col 6, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 15, Derderian discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure (figs 1-6) comprising:
a first support structure including a first base, a first platform spaced vertically apart from the first base, and a plurality of first struts extending between the first base and the first platform; a second support structure including a second base, a second platform spaced vertically apart from the second base, and a plurality of second struts extending between the second base and the second platform (figs 1 and 4, members 22);
a first cushioning element having a first cushioning property disposed adjacent to the first platform; and a second cushioning element formed separately from the first cushioning element (fig 1, member 22a) and having a second cushioning property different than the first cushioning property disposed adjacent to the second platform (col 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 16, Derderian discloses the first platform is disposed between the first cushioning element and the first struts, and the second platform is disposed between the second cushioning element and the second struts (figs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, Derderian discloses the first cushioning property is a first thickness and the second cushioning property is a second thickness different from the first thickness (fig 2, member 22a is thinner toward the toe area).
Regarding claim 18, Derderian discloses the first cushioning property is a first density and the second cushioning property is a second density different from the first density (col 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 19, Derderian discloses the first support structure defines an interior void between the plurality of first struts and includes an internal foam component disposed within the interior void and integrally formed with the first cushioning element (fig 1, member 24, col 6, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 20, Derderian discloses an external foam component disposed adjacent to an exterior perimeter of the plurality of first struts of the first support structure and integrally formed with the first cushioning element (fig 1, member 24, col 6, lines 5-10).
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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derderian et al. (4,535,553) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Gheorghian et al. (2017/0231322).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Derderian teaches all limitations and Gheorghian teaches a sole structure comprising a fluid-filled bladder disposed adjacent to at least one of the base or the platform of the one or more support structures.
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 Derderian by using the fluid-filled bladder of Gheorghian in order to provide better impact-attenuation support.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Applicant No. 18/407,966. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim essentially the same elements such as support structure with base, platform, and struts and cushioning element.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Applicant No. 19/538,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim essentially the same elements such as support structure with base, platform, and struts and cushioning element.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Applicant No. 19/538,454. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim essentially the same elements such as support structure with base, platform, and struts and cushioning element.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Applicant No. 19/538,406. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim essentially the same elements such as support structure with base, platform, and struts and cushioning element.
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