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 .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 12/15/2025, claims 1-8, 12, 21-25, 27 are amended. Claims 1-13, 21-27 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 25 and in particular regarding the Larson reference 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. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly added limitations in reference to the previously presented rejections. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has introduced new limitations and changed the scope of the claims, the Larson reference has been reinterpreted and the rejection has been updated, as described below.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependence from the independent claims; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, the independent claims are not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
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) 1-8, 11, 13, 21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larson (US 2015/0342305).
Regarding claim 1, Larson discloses: An outsole for an athletic shoe, the outsole comprising: at least one main stud (center spike 70) disposed on a bottom surface of the outsole and having a main stud base and a main tip, wherein the main stud base defines a first projection extending from the bottom surface, wherein the main tip is secured on the main stud base (see figure 9 annotated below; “Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38; molding is understood to be a suitable method of securing especially in light of claim 4 which requires molding in particular; given that all of the pieces are molded together, the parts on the cleat as indicated in the figure are considered to be projections extending from the bottom surface of the outsole) and extending at a main axis generally perpendicular to a main ground-contact surface; and at least one peripheral stud (spikes 46) disposed on a peripheral surface of the outsole closer to a lateral side of the outsole than the main stud, the peripheral stud having a peripheral stud base and a peripheral tip, wherein the peripheral stud base defines a second projection extending from the bottom surface, wherein the peripheral tip is secured on the peripheral stud base (see figure 9 annotated below; “Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38; molding is understood to be a suitable method of securing especially in light of claim 4 which requires molding in particular; given that all of the pieces are molded together, the parts on the cleat as indicated in the figure are considered to be projections extending from the bottom surface of the outsole) and extending at a second axis tilted at an angle toward the lateral side from the main axis (see figure 9; “spikes 46 include an angled shaft or traction arm 64 at approximately 46 degrees” paragraph 45; see annotated figure 2 below showing that the peripheral stud and tip extends toward the lateral side), wherein the main tip of the main stud and the peripheral tip of the peripheral stud are linked by a bridge portion (the main tip and peripheral tip are linked by the body 58 of the cleat), and wherein the main tip, the peripheral tip and the bridge portion are formed as a first integral piece from one material (“FIG. 9 illustrates a lower perspective view of flexible cleat 42 including integral molded button 22, body 58, eight flexible spikes 46, and a ninth center spike 70 extending from the body” paragraph 47; since the body, spikes, and center spike are all integrally molded, they are understood to be made from one material; Examiner notes that the additional portion 71 on center spike 70 is considered a separate component from the center spike 70, so it is not included in the main stud, and the tip of the main stud (center spike 70) is located before the pointed part 71, as illustrated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 9 of Larson
PNG
media_image2.png
502
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Larson
Regarding claim 2, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the second axis of the peripheral stud is tilted at the angle from the main axis being in the range of 5 to 60 degrees (“spikes 46 include an angled shaft or traction arm 64 at approximately 46 degrees” paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 3, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 2, wherein the second axis of the peripheral stud is tilted at the angle from the main axis being in the range of 30 to 60 degrees (“spikes 46 include an angled shaft or traction arm 64 at approximately 46 degrees” paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 4, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the main stud base is formed with the bottom surface of the outsole (see annotated figure 9 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; “Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38, therefore the parts of the cleat indicated in the figure are formed with the bottom surface of the outsole) and wherein the peripheral stud base is molded integral with the bottom surface of the outsole (see annotated figure 9 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; “Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38, therefore the parts of the cleat indicated in the figure are molded integral with the bottom surface of the outsole), wherein the first integral piece is molded separate from the main stud base and the peripheral stud base, wherein the first integral piece is over molded to the main stud base and the peripheral stud base (“Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38) Examiner notes that the italicized limitations have been interpreted as a product-by-process limitation; since the cleat is overmolded/integrally molded to the outsole, it is understood that the structure of the final product is the same as claimed, including all structural features implied by the claimed processes of molding, and therefore the prior art reads on the claim. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 5, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 4, wherein the bottom surface of the outsole is formed of a base material (“Overshoe 10 can be constructed using elastic material, such as natural and synthetic polymers, rubbers, reinforced rubbers, silicone, amorphous and crystalline thermoplastic resins, and other suitable materials.” Paragraph 27) being different material than the one material of the main tip, peripheral tip and the bridge portion (“cleats 42 and 44 can be a harder material, such as a fibrous polyvinylchloride (PVC) ” paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 6, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral stud is arranged on the lateral side of the outsole (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the peripheral stud being arranged on the lateral side).
Regarding claim 7, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the main stud base and the peripheral stud base are at least partly merged (the base of the main stud and the base of the peripheral stud (see annotated figure 9 provided in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) are both part of the cleat, therefore they are at least partly merged because they are integrally connected as one piece).
Regarding claim 8, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral stud has a generally triangular shape, wherein two corners are pointing outwards towards the lateral side of the outsole and one corner is pointing inwards towards a center of the outsole (see figure 9 annotated below showing the generally triangular shape with the corners as claimed; as previously identified in the annotated figure 2 provided in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, the peripheral stud is already located on the lateral side and thus the two corners are pointing outwards toward the lateral side as can be seen in figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
455
571
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 8, wherein the outsole comprises a forefoot part separate from a heel part (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
465
677
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Larson discloses: A shoe comprising an outsole according to claim 1 (see figure 11b showing a shoe 74 in combination with the outsole 10).
Regarding claim 21, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral stud comprises at least two peripheral lateral studs (see annotated figure 2 below), wherein the at least one main stud further comprises: a first main stud (center spike 70 on the designated cleat member shown in annotated figure 2 below; Examiner notes that while the center spikes 70 are not shown in this figure, they are described in paragraph 47 and shown in figure 9, as noted in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole; and a second main stud (center spike 70 on the designated cleat member shown in annotated figure 2 below; Examiner notes that while the center spikes 70 are not shown in this figure, they are described in paragraph 47 and shown in figure 9, as noted in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) disposed on the bottom surface of the outsole, wherein the outsole comprises at least a first, a second, and a third row of studs (see annotated figure 2 below showing the first, second, and third row of studs), counted from a front of the outsole, wherein the first main stud and a first one of the peripheral lateral studs are included in the second row of studs, and wherein the second main stud and a second one of said peripheral lateral studs are included in the third row of studs (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
502
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral stud is disposed rearwards from at least a first group of studs of the outsole (see annotated figure 2 below showing the at least one peripheral lateral stud being disposed rearwards of at least a first group of studs).
PNG
media_image6.png
471
724
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Larson discloses: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral stud is disposed on a forefoot part of the outsole spaced apart from a front tip of the outsole and forward of an arch portion (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the peripheral stud being disposed on a forefoot part, spaced apart from a front tip of the outsole and forward of an arch portion).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12, 22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Krikorian (US 2009/0211118).
Regarding claim 12, Larson does not explicitly disclose: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein a peripheral ground-contact surface of the peripheral stud is smaller than the main ground-contact surface of the main stud.
However, Krikorian teaches a cleat with a peripheral stud (22) and a main stud (4), wherein the peripheral ground-contact surface of the peripheral stud is smaller than the main ground-contact surface of the main stud (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
664
542
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Krikorian teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cleats/studs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the main stud of Larson with a larger ground-contact surface than the ground-contact surface of the peripheral stud, as taught by Krikorian, in order to “utilize dynamic traction to reduce secondary penetration by field studs into muddy and soggy sod” (Krikorian, paragraph 9), which “results in a cleat with enhanced traction while minimizing injuries to the user and conserving user energy during sports or other activities” (Krikorian, paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 22, Larson does not explicitly disclose: The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral stud has a height from the bottom surface lower than a height of the at least one main stud from the bottom surface.
However, Krikorian teaches a cleat with a peripheral stud (22) and a main stud (4), wherein the peripheral stud has a height lower than a height of the main stud (see figure 1).
Krikorian teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cleats/studs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the main stud of Larson with a greater height than the height of the peripheral stud, as taught by Krikorian, in order to “utilize dynamic traction to reduce secondary penetration by field studs into muddy and soggy sod” (Krikorian, paragraph 9), which “results in a cleat with enhanced traction while minimizing injuries to the user and conserving user energy during sports or other activities” (Krikorian, paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 25, Larson discloses: An outsole for an athletic shoe, the outsole comprising: a bottom surface part of the outsole having: a bottom surface; a main stud base defining a first projection extending from the bottom surface, and a peripheral stud base defining a second projection extending from the bottom surface and disposed closer to a lateral side of the outsole than the main stud base (see annotated figure 9 of Larson provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the main stud base and peripheral stud base); an integral stud tip formed as one piece having a main tip (70), a peripheral tip (46; see annotated figure 2 of Larson provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) and a bridge portion (58) (“FIG. 9 illustrates a lower perspective view of flexible cleat 42 including integral molded button 22, body 58, eight flexible spikes 46, and a ninth center spike 70 extending from the body” paragraph 47; since the body, spikes, and center spike are all integrally molded, they are understood to be made from one material; Examiner notes that the additional portion 71 on center spike 70 is considered a separate component from the center spike 70, so it is not included in the main stud, and the tip of the main stud (center spike 70) is located before the pointed part 71, as illustrated in the annotated figure 9 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the integral stud tip is secured to the bottom surface with the main tip secured on the main stud base and with the peripheral tip secured on the peripheral stud base (“Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38), wherein the main tip includes a main ground-contact surface and extends at a main axis downward to position the main ground-contact surface at a first height from the bottom surface and is configured to be generally perpendicular to the main ground-contact surface (see figure 9), and wherein the peripheral tip includes a peripheral ground-contact surface and extends at a second axis tilted at an angle toward the lateral side from the main axis (see figure 9; “spikes 46 include an angled shaft or traction arm 64 at approximately 46 degrees” paragraph 45; see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing that the peripheral stud and tip extends toward the lateral side), wherein the bridge portion links the main tip and the peripheral tip (the main tip and peripheral tip are linked by the body 58 of the cleat).
Larson dose not explicitly disclose: the peripheral tip extends downward to position the peripheral ground-contact surface at a second height less than the first height from the bottom surface.
However, Krikorian teaches a cleat with a peripheral stud (22) and a main stud (4), wherein the peripheral stud has a height less than a height of the main stud (see figure 1).
Krikorian teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear with cleats/studs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the main stud of Larson with a greater height than the height of the peripheral stud, as taught by Krikorian, in order to “utilize dynamic traction to reduce secondary penetration by field studs into muddy and soggy sod” (Krikorian, paragraph 9), which “results in a cleat with enhanced traction while minimizing injuries to the user and conserving user energy during sports or other activities” (Krikorian, paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 26, Larson as modified discloses: The outsole according to claim 25, wherein the bottom surface of the outsole is formed of a base material (Larson, “Overshoe 10 can be constructed using elastic material, such as natural and synthetic polymers, rubbers, reinforced rubbers, silicone, amorphous and crystalline thermoplastic resins, and other suitable materials.” Paragraph 27) being different material than a tip material of the integral stud tip (Larson, “cleats 42 and 44 can be a harder material, such as a fibrous polyvinylchloride (PVC) ” paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 27, Larson as modified discloses: The outsole according to claim 25, wherein the integral stud tip is molded separate from the bottom surface of the outsole, and wherein the integral stud tip is over molded to the main stud base and the peripheral stud base to secure the integral stud tip to the bottom surface of the outsole (Larson, “Cleats 42 and 44 can also be over-molded or integrally molded into overshoe 10.” Paragraph 38) Examiner notes that the italicized limitations have been interpreted as a product-by-process limitation; since the cleat is overmolded/integrally molded to the outsole, it is understood that the structure of the final product is the same as claimed, including all structural features implied by the claimed processes of molding, and therefore the prior art reads on the claim. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter was provided in the Office action mailed 10/1/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ekstrom (US 2021/0259367) teaches an outsole with peripheral cleats.
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732