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 1/27/2026 has been received; Claims 1-3, 5-11, 25-29, 32-36 are pending.
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 1-3, 5-11, 25-29 & 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenstein (US 2018/0098601) in view of Baghdadi (US 2017/0267850).
Regarding Claim 1, Hartenstein discloses a golf shoe (Figures 1-6, Para. 35) comprising: a footbed or an insole board (46, Figure 2,Para. 36 & 40); and a sole assembly (10) comprising a midsole (12/18), wherein the midsole comprises a support with a first region (12) having a first stiffness or hardness (Para. 18 & 33) and a second region (18) having a second stiffness or hardness (Para. 18 & 33), wherein at least one of the first region and the second region extends longitudinally between a forefoot region and a rearfoot region of the midsole (Figures 1-6) to control (i) a movement of a subject's foot (Para. 30 & 33) and (ii) a flex or a deformation of the midsole as the subject exerts a force on the midsole during a golf swing (Para. 30, 33 & 35); wherein the rearfoot portion of the support comprises an inner portion with an uppermost surface (us1, see annotated Figure 2 below) that is closer to the subject’s foot than any other part of the inner portion of the support, wherein the uppermost surface is positioned below a bottom surface of the insole board and an outer portion with an upper surface (us2, see annotated Figure 2 below) that is configured to face the subject’s foot, wherein the upper surface is aligned with the uppermost surface of the inner portion, wherein the outer portion comprises a different material than the inner portion (the portion us2 at 82 is a different material); wherein the rearfoot portion of the support is longitudinally flexible about a center line of the support (Figures 1-6), and wherein a medial side of the rearfoot portion of the support is bendable relative to a lateral side of the rearfoot portion of the support along the center line of the support (due to difference in material and the material properties in general; the support is capable of bending as claimed). Hartenstein does not specifically disclose both a footbed and insole board or a grooveless support not comprising any gaps formed within a rearfoot portion of the grooveless support. However, Baghdadi discloses the use of multiple components including a footbed and insole board (Para. 17 & 18) and a grooveless support (Figures 4 & 5, Para. 27-29) not comprising any gaps formed within a rearfoot portion of the grooveless support to provide further comfort. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the sole components and a grooveless support, as taught by Baghdadi, in order to provide further comfort to a user while improving physical properties.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the first region is positioned around the second region (Hartenstein, Figures 1-6), and wherein the second region extends longitudinally between the forefoot region and the rearfoot region of the midsole (Hartenstein, Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the first stiffness or hardness is greater than the second stiffness or hardness (Hartenstein, Para. 18 & 33).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the first region has a first tensile strength, and wherein the second region has a second tensile strength that is less than the first tensile strength (Hartenstein, Para. 18 & 33).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the grooveless support further comprises a third region having a third stiffness or hardness (Hartenstein, Para. 36-37, 40, & 45-46).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the first region is positioned around the second region and the third region (Hartenstein, Figures 1-6), and wherein the second and third regions extend longitudinally between the forefoot region and the rearfoot region of the midsole (Hartenstein, Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the second region is in the forefoot region of the midsole (Figures 1-6), and wherein the third region is in the rearfoot region of the midsole (Hartenstein, Para. 36-37 & 45-46).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose a midfoot region of the midsole has a greater torsional stiffness, rigidity, or strength than the forefoot and rearfoot regions of the midsole (Hartenstein, Figures 1-6, Para. 18, 30 & 33).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the first stiffness or hardness is greater than the second stiffness or hardness and the third stiffness or hardness (Hartenstein, Para. 18, 30, 33, 36-37 & 45-46).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi do not specifically disclose the second stiffness or hardness is equal to the third stiffness or hardness. 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 hardness for the second and third region in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the hardness involves only routine skill in the art, especially as taught by Hartenstein.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the first region has a first density and the second region has a second density that is different than the first density (Hartenstein, Para. 18 & 33).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi do not specifically disclose the second region and the third region have different densities. 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 density for the second and third region in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the density involves only routine skill in the art, especially as taught by Hartenstein.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi do not specifically disclose the third stiffness or hardness is greater than the second stiffness or hardness. 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 hardness for the second and third region in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the hardness involves only routine skill in the art, especially as taught by Hartenstein.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi do not specifically disclose the third stiffness or hardness is less than the second stiffness or hardness. 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 hardness for the second and third region in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the hardness involves only routine skill in the art, especially as taught by Hartenstein.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the grooveless support comprises a support without any grooves, openings, channels, or gaps formed on or within the support, any recesses or depressions extending into the support and any cavities or hollowed regions extending through the support (as modified, Hartenstein, Figure 2 & Baghdadi, Figures 4 & 5).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the sole assembly does not include any gaps (i) between the insole board and the rearfoot portion of the grooveless support or (ii) between the rearfoot portion of the grooveless support and a midfoot portion of the grooveless support (Hartenstein, Figures 1-6, Para. 18, 30 & 33 & Baghdadi, Figure 4 & 5).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the insole board comprises a rigid support that is provided between the subject’s foot and the grooveless support (Baghdadi, Para. 17-18).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the rearfoot portion of the grooveless support comprises a first material, and wherein a forefoot portion of the grooveless support comprises the first material and a second material with a greater density than the first material (Para. 18 & 33).
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose the uppermost surface is configured to extend longitudinally across a central heel region of the grooveless support (as modified, Hartenstein, Figure 2 & Baghdadi, Figures 4 & 5).
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Hartenstein and Baghdadi disclose an entirety of the inner portion is (i) positioned below the bottom surface of the insole board and (ii) spaced apart from the subject's foot such that the inner portion does not directly contact the subject's foot (us1, see Figure 2, the portion is situated as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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