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 .
This is in response to the Application filed January 8, 2024, in which Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “an adhesive layer” in line 6, which appears to be an error and should read “the adhesive layer” as it appears to refer to the previously claimed adhesive layer. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosini (US 7,219,383) in view of Chaney (US 2019/0008232).
Regarding Claim 1, Ambrosini discloses a cleat for adhesion to a footwear outsole comprising: a body (22) formed from a flexible material having a hardness (as seen in Fig.2 & 3 the flat plate of 22 follows the curvature of the shoe outsole and therefore is flexible, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant), the body comprising a base (flat plate of 22) having a flat surface for receiving an adhesive layer (28; Col.7, lines 1-17) and a plurality of protrusions (i.e. cleats; Abstract) extending from the base configured to engage environmental surfaces (as seen in Fig.2 & 3); and, an adhesive layer in communication with the flat surface of the body base; wherein the adhesive layer is configured to adhere the body to a footwear outsole to provide traction generated by the plurality of protrusions to the footwear (as seen in Fig.2 & 3; Col.7, lines 1-17). Ambrosini does not disclose the flexible material having a hardness between 40 and 100 Shore A. However, Chaney teaches a body (6) for adhesion to a footwear outsole (Abstract), the body formed of flexible material having a hardness between 40 and 100 Shore A (para.57).
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 flexible material of Ambrosini to have a hardness between 40 and 100 Shore A, as taught by Chaney, in order to provide a durable base with the desired level of cushioning and support to a user’s foot.
Regarding Claim 2, Ambrosini discloses a cleat of claim 1, where the protrusions (i.e. cleats) of the body have a thickness greater than then thickness of the base (flat plate of 22) of the body (See annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ambrosini and Chaney disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ambrosini does not disclose wherein the base of the body has a thickness between 0.030 and 0.10 inches. However, 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 base of Ambrosini with a thickness between 0.030 and 0.10 inches, in order to provide the optimum level of flexibility to the base for ease of walking. Further, the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4, Ambrosini and Chaney disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ambrosini does not disclose wherein the plurality of protrusions of the body have a thickness between 0.050 and 0.15 inches. However, 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 plurality of protrusions of Ambrosini with a thickness between 0.050 and 0.15 inches, in order to provide the optimum level of traction to a user. Further, the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 on 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