Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/170,876

SOLE STRUCTURE FOR ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Feb 17, 2023
Examiner
LYNCH, MEGAN E
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nike, Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
38%
Grant Probability
At Risk
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 38% of cases
38%
Career Allow Rate
232 granted / 613 resolved
-32.2% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
71 currently pending
Career history
684
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 613 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed December 4, 2025 has been received, Claims 21-27 and 29-40 are currently pending. 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. 1. Claim(s) 21, 26-27, 30, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erickson (US 6,708,426). Regarding Claim 21, Erickson discloses a sole structure comprising: a first plate (20) having a first serrated region continuously extending from a first end (i.e. heel facing end) disposed in a toe portion of the sole structure to a second end (i.e. toe facing end) opposite the first end, disposed in a ball portion of the sole structure (see annotated Figure below), the first serrated region including a plurality of first ribs extending from a bottom surface of the first plate (see annotated Figure below), wherein each of the first ribs includes a central portion (i.e. center region of rib), a first end (i.e. left end), and a second end (i.e. right end) opposite the first end of the ribs, a height of each of the first ribs tapering from a tallest height at the central portion to shorter heights at the first end of the first ribs and at the second end of the first ribs such that a distal edge (i.e. toe facing edge) of the first ribs intersects a bottom surface (26) of the first plate (as seen in Fig.2, 3 & 6), a width of the first serrated region continuously tapers from the first end to the second end (see annotated Figure below); wherein lengths of the first ribs decrease from a maximum at the first end of the first serrated region to a minimum at the second end of the first serrated region (as seen in the annotated Figure below, the ribs decrease in length from the heel facing end of the first serrated region to the toe facing end of the first serrated region), and a second serrated region including a plurality of second ribs extending from the bottom surface of the first plate (See annotated Figure above), wherein at least one first rib of the plurality of first ribs includes a first concave surface (i.e. surface facing toe end) and at least one second rib of the plurality of second ribs includes a second concave surface (i.e. surface facing heel end), the first concave surface facing an anterior end (i.e. toe end) of the first plate and the second concave surface facing a posterior end (i.e. heel end) of the first plate (See annotated Figure above), wherein, the first serrated region is positioned on a lateral side of the first plate next to a lateral peripheral cleat, and the second serrated region is positioned on a medial side of the first plate next to a medial peripheral cleat (as seen in the annotated Figure below, which shows the first serrated region has a portion located on a lateral side and “next” to the lateral peripheral cleat & which shows the second serrated region has a portion located on a medial side and “next” to the medial peripheral cleat). PNG media_image1.png 491 549 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 386 472 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 378 382 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 26, Erickson discloses a sole structure of Claim 21, wherein first ribs of the plurality of first ribs include a concave surface (i.e. surface facing toe end) formed on a first side of each first rib and a convex surface (i.e. surface facing heel end) formed on an opposite side of each first (See annotated Figure above). Regarding Claim 27, Erickson discloses a sole structure of Claim 26, wherein the concave surface (i.e. surface facing toe end) of each first rib faces an anterior end (i.e. toe end) of the first plate (See annotated Figure above). Regarding Claim 30, Erickson discloses an article of footwear including the sole structure of Claim 21 (as seen in Fig.1). Regarding Claim 37, Erickson discloses an article of footwear comprising: an upper (12) having a bottom surface; and a first plate (14,16,20), including a first surface (i.e. top surface of 14) and a second surface (i.e. bottom surface of 20), attached to the bottom surface of the upper by the first surface in a forefoot region (as seen in Fig.1 & 2), the first plate further including: a first serrated region including a plurality of first ribs extending from a bottom surface of the first plate (See annotated Figure above), wherein each of the first ribs includes a central portion (i.e. center region of rib), a first end (i.e. left end), and a second end (i.e. right end) opposite the first end, a height of each of the first ribs tapering from a tallest height at the central portion to shorter heights at the first end of the first ribs and at the second end of the first ribs (as seen in Fig.2, 3 & 6), and wherein a width (i.e. length of each rib; see para.64 of Applicant’s disclosure which indicates the rib width is the length of the rib) of respective ribs of the plurality of first ribs continuously increases from the first end of the first serrated region to the second end of the first serrated region (as seen in the annotated Figure above); a plurality of second ribs extending from the bottom surface of the first plate (as seen in the annotated Figure above), wherein at least one first rib of the plurality of first ribs includes a first concave surface and at least one second rib of the plurality of second ribs includes a second concave surface, the first concave surface faces one end of the first plate and the second concave surface faces another end of the first plate (as seen in the annotated Figure above), wherein, the plurality of first ribs is positioned on a lateral side of the first plate next to a lateral peripheral cleat, and the plurality of second ribs is positioned on a medial side of the first plate next to a medial peripheral cleat (as seen in the annotated Figure below, which shows the first ribs has a portion located on a lateral side and “next” to the lateral peripheral cleat & which shows the second ribs has a portion located on a medial side and “next” to the medial peripheral cleat). 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. 2. Claim(s) 22-25, 29, 31-36, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson (US 6,708,426) in view of Minami (US 2013/0067778). Regarding Claim 22, Erickson discloses the invention substantially as claimed above. Erickson does not disclose each of the peripheral cleats includes: a stud having a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape; a first blade extending along a first longitudinal direction from a first end attached to an anterior end of the stud toward a terminal end disposed between the stud and the anterior end; and a second blade extending along a second longitudinal direction from a first end attached to a posterior end of the stud toward a terminal end disposed between the stud and the posterior end. However, Minami teaches a sole with a peripheral cleat (530) including: a stud (532) having a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape; a first blade (536) extending along a first longitudinal direction from a first end attached to an anterior end of the stud toward a terminal end disposed between the stud and the anterior end (as seen in Fig.6); and a second blade (534) extending along a second longitudinal direction from a first end attached to a posterior end of the stud toward a terminal end disposed between the stud and the posterior end (as seen in Fig.6); and the peripheral cleat can be removed from the sole (para.24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the peripheral cleats of Erickson to have a substantially triangular cross-sectional shaped stud and first and second blades extending along longitudinal directions from ends of the stud, as taught by Minami, in order to provide a removable peripheral cleat with a shape that delivers the desired level of traction for activity being performed by the user when wearing the shoes. Regarding Claim 23, When in combination, Erickson and Minami teach a sole structure of Claim 22, wherein the lateral peripheral cleat (of modified Erickson) is disposed adjacent to a first outward-most portion of the first plate on a lateral side (Erickson: as seen in Fig.4), and the medial peripheral cleat (of modified Erickson) is disposed adjacent to a second outward-most portion of the first plate on a medial side (Erickson: as seen in Fig.4), and wherein the first outward-most portion of the first plate and the second outward-most portion of the first plate are aligned along a metatarsophalangeal axis (Erickson: as seen in Fig.4). Regarding Claim 24, When in combination, Erickson and Minami teach a sole structure of Claim 23, wherein each stud of the peripheral cleats is disposed at the respective outward-most portion of the first plate (Erickson: Fig.4 & Minami: Fig.6), and wherein the stud includes an outward-facing surface (Minami: convex surface of 532) disposed adjacent to a peripheral surface of the first plate (Erickson: Fig.4 & Minami: Fig.6). Regarding Claim 25, Erickson further discloses a sole structure of Claim 22, wherein the first serrated region is disposed between the lateral peripheral cleat (lateral 61 above 50) and the medial peripheral cleat (medial 61 above 50)(See annotated Figure above & Fig.2). Regarding Claim 29, When in combination, Erickson and Minami teach a sole structure of Claim 23, wherein (i) the first blade and the second blade of each of the peripheral cleats includes a height that tapers downward from the first end to the terminal end (Minami: 536,534; as seen in Fig.6), the first blade and the second blade extending in a longitudinal direction along a peripheral side surface of the first plate such that the first blade, the second blade, and the stud form a continuous curved edge along the peripheral side surface (Minami: Fig.6) and (ii) each of the peripheral cleats are offset from one another along a longitudinal axis of the first plate (Erickson: as seen in Fig.4, medial 61 above 50 & lateral 61 below 50). Regarding Claim 31, Erickson discloses an article of footwear comprising: an upper (12) having a bottom surface (i.e. where 12 meets the sole), a first plate (14,16,20) attached to the bottom surface of the upper in a forefoot region and including a first peripheral cleat (medial 61 above 50) and a second peripheral cleat (lateral 61 below 50), each of the first peripheral cleat and the second peripheral cleat (i) including a central stud (i.e. center of 61) and at least one blade (i.e. blade projections at periphery of 61), the at least one blade extending in a longitudinal direction along a peripheral side surface of the first plate (as seen in Fig.4, at least one blade extends in a longitudinal direction “along” the peripheral side surface of 14,16,20) (ii) being offset from one another along a longitudinal axis of the first plate (as seen in Fig.4, medial 61 above 50 & lateral 61 below 50 are offset from one another along a longitudinal axis) such that a central stud of the first peripheral cleat is disposed nearer an anterior end of the first plate than is a central stud of the second peripheral cleat (as seen in Fig.2), wherein the first peripheral cleat and the second peripheral cleat are disposed on outermost edges (60) of the first plate (as seen in Fig.4); and a first serrated region, extending from a first end disposed in a toe portion of the forefoot region to a second end disposed in a ball portion of the forefoot region (see annotated Figure above), disposed between the first peripheral cleat and the second peripheral cleat and including a plurality of first ribs extending from a bottom surface of the first plate (See annotated Figure above & Fig.4), wherein each of the first ribs includes a central portion (i.e. center region of rib), a first end (i.e. left end), and a second end (i.e. right end) opposite the first end, a height of each of the first ribs tapering from a tallest height at the central portion to shorter heights at the first end and at the second end (as seen in Fig.2, 3 & 6). Erickson does not disclose the central stud tapering from a proximal end attached to the first plate to a distal end opposite the proximal end, and wherein each of the first peripheral cleat and the second peripheral cleat extend parallel to the first serrated region from the first end of the first serrated region to at least the second end of the first serrated region; and (iii) the at least one blade of the first peripheral cleat extends parallel to the peripheral side surface of the first plate and the at least one blade of the second peripheral cleat extends at an oblique angle relative to the peripheral side surface. However, Minami teaches a sole with a first peripheral cleat (108) and a second peripheral cleat (530), each including: a central stud (360/532) tapering from a proximal end (i.e. base end) attached to the first plate to a distal end (i.e. ground engaging end) opposite the proximal end (as seen in Fig.1, 6 & 7); at least one blade (364/536) extending in a longitudinal direction along a peripheral side surface of the first plate (as seen in Fig.6); and the peripheral cleat can be removed from the sole (para.24); and (iii) the at least one blade (364) of the first peripheral cleat extends parallel to the peripheral side surface of the first plate and the at least one blade (536) of the second peripheral cleat extends at an oblique angle relative to the peripheral side surface (as seen in Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the peripheral cleats of Erickson to have a tapering central stud and first blade extending along longitudinal directions from the studs, as taught by Minami, in order to provide a removable peripheral cleat with a shape that delivers the desired level of traction for activity being performed by the user when wearing the shoes. Regarding Claim 32, Minami further teaches an article of footwear of Claim 31, wherein the central stud and the at least one blade of the first peripheral cleat (180) cooperate to form a first continuous outer surface adjacent to the peripheral side surface on a lateral side of the first plate (as seen in Fig.6), and the central stud and the at least one blade of the second peripheral cleat (530) cooperate to form a second continuous outer surface adjacent to the peripheral side surface on a medial side of the first plate (as seen in Fig.6, the first and second peripheral cleats having a continuous outer surface adjacent the periphery of the lateral/medial side of the plate). Regarding Claim 33, Minami further teaches an article of footwear of Claim 31, wherein the at least one blade includes a first blade (362/536) extending along a first longitudinal direction from an anterior end of the central stud (360/532), and a second blade (364/534) extending along a second longitudinal direction from a posterior end of the central stud, and wherein the central stud includes an outward-facing surface (i.e. surface of 360 adjacent lateral side of 106 & surface of 532 adjacent medial side of 106) disposed adjacent to a peripheral surface of the first plate (as seen in Fig.6). Regarding Claim 34, Erickson discloses an article of footwear of Claim 31, wherein each of the first ribs of the plurality of first ribs include an arcuate shape (See annotated Figure above). Regarding Claim 35, Erickson discloses an article of footwear of Claim 31, wherein each of the first ribs of the plurality of first ribs include a concave surface (i.e. surface facing toe end) formed on a first side of each first rib and a convex surface (i.e. surface facing heel end) formed on an opposite side of each first rib (See annotated Figure below). Regarding Claim 36, Erickson discloses an article of footwear of Claim 35, wherein the concave surface (i.e. surface facing toe end) of each first rib faces an anterior end (i.e. toe end) of the first plate (See annotated Figure below). Regarding Claim 38, Erickson discloses an article of footwear of Claim 37, further including: a first peripheral cleat (lateral 61) extending from the first plate and a second peripheral cleat (medial 61) extending from the first plate. Erickson does not disclose each of the first peripheral cleat and the second peripheral cleat further including: a stud, the stud including a first end attached to the second surface of the first plate and including a second end disposed apart from the first end and facing away from the bottom surface, forming a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the article of footwear, wherein a width of the stud tapers from a largest width at the first end to a smallest width at the second end; a first blade extending along a first longitudinal direction from an anterior end of the stud; and a second blade extending along a second longitudinal direction from a posterior end of the stud. However, Minami teaches a sole having a peripheral cleat (530) having a stud (532), the stud including a first end attached to the second surface of the first plate and including a second end disposed apart from the first end and facing away from the bottom surface (as seen in Fig.1 & 6), forming (via connection) a portion of an outer peripheral surface (i.e. periphery of plate) of the article of footwear (as seen in Fig.1), wherein a width of the stud tapers from a largest width at the first end to a smallest width at the second end (as seen in Fig.1); a first blade (536) extending along a first longitudinal direction from an anterior end of the stud; and a second blade (534) extending along a second longitudinal direction from a posterior end of the stud (as seen in Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the peripheral cleats of Erickson to have a stud and first and second blades extending along longitudinal directions from ends of the stud, as taught by Minami, in order to provide a removable peripheral cleat with a shape that delivers the desired level of traction for activity being performed by the user when wearing the shoes. Regarding Claim 39, When in combination, Erickson and Minami teach an article of footwear of Claim 38, wherein a portion of the stud (Minami: i.e. convex surface of 532) forms (via connection) a portion of an outer peripheral surface (i.e. periphery of plate) of the article of footwear such that a gap is formed between the first blade and the second blade, and the outer peripheral surface of the article of footwear (Erickson: Fig.4 & Minami: Fig.6). Regarding Claim 40, When in combination, Erickson and Minami teach an article of footwear of Claim 38, wherein each of the stud, the first blade, and the second blade includes an outer surface forming a continuous convex surface (Minami: Fig.6), and wherein a first gap is disposed between the first blade and the outer peripheral surface (i.e. periphery of the sole), and a second gap is disposed between the second blade and the outer peripheral surface (i.e. periphery of the sole)(Erickson: Fig.4 & Minami: Fig.6). Response to Arguments In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection. 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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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. /MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 16, 2024
Interview Requested
Feb 27, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 27, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 08, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 05, 2024
Interview Requested
Jun 13, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 13, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 23, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 04, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 04, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 13, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 10, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 12, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599192
FLEXIBLE ARCH SUPPORT FOR FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575647
CUT STEP TRACTION ELEMENT ARRANGEMENT FOR AN ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12557870
KNITTED COMPONENT WITH ADJUSTABLE TENSIONING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557871
REINFORCED KNIT CHANNEL FOR AN ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12543814
ARTICLES OF FOOTWEAR WITH KNITTED COMPONENTS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
38%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+41.9%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 613 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month