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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (see claim 8, lines 8-9). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelleher et al. (US 2021/0100319), herein Kelleher.
Regarding claim 1, Kelleher discloses an interlocking assembly for an article of footwear, the interlocking assembly comprising: a first component (20) having a plurality of ribs (62) exposed through a medial side and a lateral side of the first component (Fig. 15), each rib of the plurality of ribs having a head (head of pin) that is connected to a base of the first component by a stem (Fig. 17), wherein the head is at least partially hollow and includes a cavity extending partially or entirely through the head in a lateral-to-medial direction, wherein the cavity extends into the stem and toward the base (Fig. 17); and a second component (sole) having a plurality of receptacles (64), wherein the plurality of ribs of the first component is configured to be received within the plurality of receptacles of the second component such that the cavity of each head at least partially collapses and expands during assembly (wherein the wider head of the snap mechanism at least partially collapses and expands to fit through the narrower start of the snap receptacle), whereby the first component and the second component are removably attached (paragraphs 0047, 0052; Fig. 15-17).
Regarding claim 2, Kelleher discloses that at least one of the plurality of receptacles is exposed through a lower surface of the second component (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Kelleher discloses that the plurality of receptacles is located between the lower surface and a top surface of the second component (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 4, Kelleher discloses that the plurality of receptacles extends continuously between a medial side and a lateral side of the second component (wherein the centrally located receptacles extend continuously between the medial and lateral sides; Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 7, Kelleher discloses that the first component is configured to snap into the second component (paragraph 0052).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelleher, as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kelleher does not disclose the specific materials of the first and second components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first component of a different material than the second component in order to provide a first component (or outsole) with adequate stiffness and abrasion resistance, and to provide a second component (or midsole) with adequate cushioning and support characteristics. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are allowed.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732