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 04-04-2026 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) 1-5, 8-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gheorghian et al. (2017/0231322).
Regarding claim 1, Gheorghian discloses a sole structure (figs 1-5) for an article of footwear, the sole structure (para 0047) comprising:
a first support structure including a first base, a first platform spaced apart from the first base and having a first configuration, and a first plurality of struts extending between the first base and the first platform (fig 4A); and
a second support structure including a second base, a second platform spaced apart from the second base and having a second configuration different from the first configuration (figs 4A and 4C), and a second plurality of struts extending between the second base and the second platform (fig 4C).
Regarding claim 2, Gheorghian discloses the first configuration includes the first platform defining a first planar surface having a first surface area and the second configuration includes the second platform defining a second planar surface having a second surface area that is different from the first surface area (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 3, Gheorghian discloses the first configuration includes a first outer perimeter defining a first shape and the second configuration includes a second outer perimeter defining a second shape different from the first shape (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 4, Gheorghian discloses the first shape is a first polygon having a first number of sides and the second shape is a second polygon having a second number of sides different from the first number of sides (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 5, Gheorghian discloses the first plurality of struts includes a first quantity of struts and the second plurality of struts includes a second quantity of struts that is different from the first quantity of struts (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 8, Gheorghian discloses a sole structure (figs 1-5) for an article of footwear, the sole structure (para 0047) comprising:
a first support structure including a first base, a first platform spaced apart from the first base and defining a first planar surface having a first surface area, and a first plurality of struts extending between the first base and the first platform (fig 4A); and
a second support structure including a second base, a second platform spaced apart from the second base and defining a second planar surface having a second surface area that is different from the first surface area (figs 4A and 4C), and a second plurality of struts extending between the second base and the second platform (fig 4C).
Regarding claim 9, Gheorghian discloses the first platform includes a first outer perimeter defining a first shape and the second platform includes a second outer perimeter defining a second shape different from the first shape (figs 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 10, Gheorghian discloses the first shape is a first polygon having a first number of sides and the second shape is a second polygon having a second number of sides different from the first number of sides (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 11, Gheorghian discloses the first plurality of struts includes a first quantity of struts and the second plurality of struts includes a second quantity of struts that is different from the first quantity of struts (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 14, Gheorghian discloses a sole structure (figs 1-5) for an article of footwear, the sole structure (para 0047) comprising:
a first support structure including a first base, a first platform spaced apart from the first base and defining a first outer perimeter having a first shape, and a first plurality of struts extending between the first base and the first platform (fig 4A); and
a second support structure including a second base, a second platform spaced apart from the second base and defining a second outer perimeter having a second shape that is different from the first shape (figs 4A and 4C), and a second plurality of struts extending between the second base and the second platform (4C).
Regarding claim 15, Gheorghian discloses the first shape is a first polygon having a first number of sides and the second shape is a second polygon having a second number of sides different from the first number of sides (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 16, Gheorghian discloses the first plurality of struts includes a first quantity of struts and the second plurality of struts includes a second quantity of struts that is different from the first quantity of struts (figs 4A and 4C).
Regarding claim 17, Gheorghian discloses the first platform defines a first planar surface having a first surface area and the second platform defines a second planar surface having a second surface area that is different from the first surface area (figs 4A and 4C).
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) 6, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheorghian et al. (2017/0231322) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Iwasa et al. (2022/0408880).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 19, Gheorghian teaches all limitations except the first configuration includes a first central aperture having a first width extending through the first platform and the second configuration includes a second aperture having a second width different from the first width extending through the second platform.
Iwasa teaches a sole structure having the first platform includes a first central aperture having a first width extending through the first platform and the second platform includes a second aperture having a second width different from the first width extending through the second platform (figs 3A to 3B).
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 Gheorghian by adding different apertures for different platform, as taught by Iwasa, in order to have significantly excellent wearing comfortableness.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheorghian et al. (2017/0231322).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, Gheorghian teaches all limitations except the first support structure is disposed on a medial side of the sole structure and the second support structure is disposed on a lateral side of the sole structure.
However, Gheorghian teaches the support structures can be placed from lateral to medial side (para 0039, 0048, and 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to understand that the first structure can be at medial side and second structure can be at lateral side in order to provide even greater stability as needed.
Regarding claims 18, Gheorghian teaches all limitations except the first platform includes a central aperture and the second platform is a continuous solid surface.
However, Gheorghian teaches the support structures can have a central aperture (figs 3A to 3B) and no aperture (figs 4A to 4C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to understand that the aperture can be used in different platforms as needed in order to provide stability.
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. Application 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 structures with struts wherein the struts are different.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Application 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 structures with struts wherein the struts are different.
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
