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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 3/27/2026 has been received; Claims 1-15, 17-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6-10, 12-15 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (USPN D450,914).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson discloses an outsole for a footwear article (Figures 1-6), the outsole comprising: a forefoot outsole portion (F, see annotated Figure 3 below) defining a forefoot portion bottom surface configured for contact with a ground surface; a heel outsole portion (H, see annotated Figure 3 below) defining a heel portion bottom surface configured for contact with the ground surface; a bridging portion (bridge, see annotated Figure 3 below) defined between the forefoot outsole portion and the heel outsole portion, the bridging portion having a recessed configuration (Figure 2) relative to the forefoot outsole portion and the heel outsole portion such that the bridging portion defines a bridging portion cavity (cavity, see annotated Figure 2 below) that extends between the forefoot outsole portion and the heel outsole portion; and at least one arc-shaped bridge (arc, see annotated Figures 2 & 3 below) extending along at least a portion of the bridging portion (Figures 2 & 3), wherein the at least one arc-shaped bridge is configured to be disposed out of an adjacent bridging portion surface of the bridging portion such that the at least one arc-shaped bridge is defined at least in part by a bridge height (height, see annotated Figure 2 below) protruding from the adjacent bridging portion surface; wherein the at least one arc-shaped bridge extends along the bridging portion in a direction defined between the forefoot outsole portion and the heel outsole portion (Figures 2 & 3); wherein the bridging portion includes a dual-bridge configuration such that the at least one arc-shaped bridge comprises a first arc-shaped bridge (arc, see annotated Figure 3 below) being provided along an outer lateral side of the bridging portion and a second arc-shaped bridge (arc, see annotated Figure 3 below) being provided along an inner lateral side of the bridging portion; wherein the at least one arc-shaped bridge further comprises a plurality of protrusions (P, see annotated Figure 3 below) distributed along an at least substantially smooth bridge bottom surface of the at least one arc- shaped bridge; wherein the at least one arc-shaped bridge is defined at least in part by a bridge bottom surface having a three-dimensional (3D) pattern formed thereon (Figures 1-6); wherein the 3D pattern defines the plurality of protrusions (Figures 2 & 3); wherein the at least one arc-shaped bridge defines a bridge width (w, see annotated Figure 3 below) and a bridge length (l, see annotated Figure 3 below) in the direction defined between the forefoot outsole portion and the heel outsole portion; wherein each of the plurality of protrusions includes a protrusion width extending along the bridge width and a protrusion length extending along the bridge length (Figures 2 & 3), wherein the protrusion width is greater than the protrusion length (Figures 2 & 3); wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is parallel to one another such that the protrusion width extends entirely linear along the bridge bottom surface in a direction substantially perpendicular to the bridge length of the at least one arc-shaped bridge (Figures 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Wilson discloses wherein the second arc-shaped bridge extends along at least the portion of the bridging portion (Figures 2 & 3), wherein the second arc-shaped bridge is configured to be disposed out of the adjacent bridging portion surface such that the second arc-shaped bridge is defined at least in part by a second bridge height (height, see annotated Figure 2 below) protruding from the adjacent bridging portion surface, wherein the first arc-shaped bridge and the second arc-shaped bridge are laterally spaced from one another (Figures 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Wilson discloses an arc-shaped configuration of the at least one arc-shaped bridge is defined by a first radius of curvature of a first bridge bottom surface (radius of curvature on each side, Figures 2 & 3) and a second arc-shaped configuration of the second arc-shaped bridge is defined by a second radius of curvature of a second bridge bottom surface (radius of curvature on each side, Figures 2 & 3), wherein the first radius of curvature is at least substantially equal to the second radius of curvature (Figures 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Wilson discloses the outsole defines a central longitudinal outsole axis (axis, see annotated Figure 3 below) extending along a length of the outsole between the heel outsole portion and the forefoot outsole portion.
Regarding Claim 7, Wilson discloses the outsole defines a central longitudinal outsole axis (axis, see annotated Figure 3 below) extending along a length of the outsole between the heel outsole portion and the forefoot outsole portion, wherein the bridge length of the at least one arc-shaped bridge is arranged at an angled configuration relative to the central longitudinal outsole axis such that the at least one arc-shaped bridge is tapered toward the heel outsole portion (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Wilson discloses the angled configuration of the at least one arc-shaped bridge relative to the central longitudinal outsole axis (axis, see annotated Figure 3 below) is defined at least in part by the bridge length of the at least one arc-shaped bridge extending along the bridging portion in a first direction, wherein the outsole is configured such that the first direction and the central longitudinal outsole axis are separated by an angle of separation of at least substantially less than 7 degrees (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Wilson discloses in an instance in which the bridging portion engages an external surface having an external surface length less than a distance between the forefoot outsole portion and the heel outsole portion, the at least one arc- shaped bridge is configured to flex about a lateral axis while the footwear article remains supported by the at least one arc-shaped bridge and substantially unflexed about a central longitudinal outsole axis defined along a length of the outsole between the heel outsole portion and the forefoot outsole portion, the lateral axis being defined in a direction corresponding to a bridging portion width (Figures 1-6, the bridging portion is capable of functioning as claimed due to the structure of its configuration).
Regarding Claim 10, Wilson discloses an arc-shaped configuration of the at least one arc-shaped bridge is configured such that a bridge bottom surface peak height is greater than a first bridge bottom surface height defined at a first bridge bottom surface end and a second bridge bottom surface height defined at a second bridge bottom surface end, as measured relative to a lowermost surface defined by the outsole (Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 12, Wilson discloses the second bridge bottom surface height is greater than the first bridge bottom surface height, as measured relative to the lowermost surface defined by the outsole (Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 13, Wilson discloses the second bridge bottom surface end is arranged closer to the heel outsole portion than is the first bridge bottom surface end (Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 14, Wilson discloses the second bridge bottom surface height and the first bridge bottom surface height are at least substantially similar such that the second bridge bottom surface end and the first bridge bottom surface end are at least substantially level (Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 15, Wilson discloses the at least one arc-shaped bridge spans the bridging portion such that the bridge length of the at least one arc-shaped bridge extends from the heel outsole portion to the forefoot outsole portion (Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 19, Wilson discloses a footwear article comprising the outsole of claim 1 (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Wilson discloses the second arc- shaped bridge extends along at least the portion of the bridging portion, wherein the second arc- shaped bridge is configured to be disposed out of the adjacent bridging portion surface such that the second arc-shaped bridge is defined at least in part by a second bridge height protruding from the adjacent bridging portion surface (Figures 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 17 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (USPN D450,914).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson discloses the bridge width (w, see annotated Figure 3 below), the bridge width is being defined between opposing lateral sides of the at least one arc-shaped bridge in a direction at least substantially perpendicular to a bridge length (l, see annotated Figure 3 below) of the at least one arc-shaped bridge. Wilson does not specifically disclose wherein the bridge width is between 9 mm and 22 mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of width for the bridge in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of arch support, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the width involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Wilson discloses the bridge width of the at least one arc-shaped bridge is at least substantially variable along the bridge length of the at least one arc-shaped bridge (Figures 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Wilson discloses a first curvature height (Figures 2) defined between the bridge bottom surface peak and the first bridge bottom surface end of the bridge bottom surface and a second curvature height (Figures 4) defined between the bridge bottom surface peak and the second bridge bottom surface end of a bridge bottom surface of the at least one arc-shaped bridge. Wilson does not specifically disclose heights are each at least approximately between 2 mm and 5 mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of height for the bridge in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of arch support, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the width involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, Wilson does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of protrusions are defined by a protrusion thickness that is between 1.5 mm and 3.0 mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of thickness for the protrusions in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose grip, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the thickness involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18, Wilson does not specifically disclose the plurality of protrusions is distributed about the bridge bottom surface such that each protrusion of the plurality is separated from an adjacent protrusion of the plurality by a separation distance of between 1 mm and 2.5 mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of separation distance for the protrusions in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose grip, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the separation distance involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights