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 July 21, 2026 has been received, Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 6,101,746) in view of Auger (US 2013/0333248).
Regarding Claim 1, Evans discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a first sole plate (10) extending from an anterior end of the sole structure to a posterior end of the sole structure (as seen in Fig.4) and including an anterior plate (forefoot plate of 10) and a posterior plate (midfoot & heel plate of 10), the anterior plate attached to the posterior plate along a joint (i.e. the point where the forefoot plate and the midfoot plate meet is a joint, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant); a first cleat set (22) disposed in a forefoot region and including a first plurality of traction elements (11) arranged in a first annular pattern about a first axis (i.e. center point of 22) disposed in the forefoot region (as seen in Fig.4); a second cleat set (14) disposed in a heel region (15) of the sole structure and including a second plurality of the traction elements (11) arranged in a second annular pattern about a second axis (i.e. center point of 14) disposed in the heel region (as seen in Fig.4). Evans does not disclose a flex zone extending along the joint from a first relief on a medial side of the first sole plate to a second relief on a lateral side of the first sole plate, each of the first relief and the second relief defined by a respective arcuate recess formed along a peripheral edge of the first sole plate and extending to a respective apex. However, Auger teaches a sole (102) with cleats (132-138,142,144) including an anterior plate portion (toe portion of 102) and a posterior plate portion (forefoot, midfoot & heel portion of 102), the anterior plate portion attached to the posterior plate portion along a joint (see dashed line in annotated Figure below); and having a flex zone (see dashed line in annotated Figure below) extending along the joint from a first relief on a medial side of the first sole plate to a second relief on a lateral side of the first sole plate (as seen in Fig.6), each of the first relief and the second relief defined by a respective arcuate recess formed along a peripheral edge of the first sole plate and extending to a respective apex (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
413
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 modified the sole plate of Evans to have a flex zone, as taught by Auger, in order to provide a sole that is flexible in the forefoot, to facilitate proper toe-off when the shoe is in use.
Regarding Claim 2, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 1, further comprising a third cleat set (24) including a third plurality of traction elements (11) arranged in a third annular pattern about the first axis (as seen in Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 3, When in combination, Evans and Auger disclose a sole structure of Claim 2, wherein the flex zone (of Auger) is formed between the first cleat set and the third cleat set (of Evans; as seen in Fig.4, the flex zone of Auger would be between 22 and 24).
Regarding Claim 4, When in combination, Evans and Auger disclose a sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first cleat set (Evans: 22) includes a first one of the traction elements aligned with the first relief and the second relief across a lateral direction of the first sole plate (Evans: as seen in Fig.4, one of 11 in 22 would be aligned with the first relief and the second relief across a lateral direction of the first sole plate of Auger).
Regarding Claim 5, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of traction elements (11 of 22) are oriented in a first rotational direction about the first axis (as seen in Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 6, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the second cleat set (14) includes a first one of the traction elements (medial 11) oriented in a first rotational direction about the second axis and a second one of the traction elements (lateral 11) oriented in an opposite second rotational direction about the second axis (as seen in Fig.4).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 6, wherein the second/third cleat set includes a third one of the traction elements (rear 11) oriented in the first rotational direction about the second axis (as seen in Fig.4). Evans does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of Fig.4, a fourth one of the traction elements oriented in the second rotational direction about the second axis. However, Evans further teaches a heel cleat set a first one of the traction elements (forward medial 11) oriented in a first rotational direction about the second axis and a second one of the traction elements (forward lateral 11) oriented in an opposite second rotational direction about the second axis, and a third one of the traction elements (rear lateral 11) oriented in the first rotational direction about the second axis and a fourth one of the traction elements (rear medial 11) oriented in the second rotational direction about the second axis (as seen in Fig.13).
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 modified the heel cleat set of Fig.4 of Evans to include a fourth traction element, as also taught by Evans Fig.13, in order to provide the optimum level of traction to a user during sporting activities, enhancing gripping and self-cleaning properties.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Modified Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 7, wherein the first one of the traction elements (forward medial 11) is diametrically opposed to the third one of the traction elements (rear lateral 11) across the second axis and the second one of the traction elements (forward lateral 11) is diametrically opposed to the fourth one of the traction elements (rear medial 11) across the second axis (as seen in Fig.13).
Regarding Claim 11, Evans discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a first sole plate (10) extending from an anterior end of the sole structure to a posterior end of the sole structure (as seen in Fig.4) and including an anterior plate (forefoot plate of 10) and a posterior plate (midfoot & heel plate of 10), the anterior plate attached to the posterior plate along a joint (i.e. the point where the forefoot plate and the midfoot plate meet is a joint, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant); a first cleat set (22) disposed in a forefoot region and including a first plurality of elongate traction elements (11) arranged in a first annular pattern about a first axis (i.e. center point of 22) disposed in the forefoot region (as seen in Fig.4); a second cleat set (24) including a second plurality of elongate traction elements (11) arranged in a second annular pattern about the first axis (as seen in Fig.4). Evans does not disclose a flex zone extending from a first relief on a medial side of the first sole plate to a second relief on a lateral side of the first sole plate, each of the first relief and the second relief defined by a respective arcuate recess formed along a peripheral edge of the first sole plate and extending to a respective apex. However, Auger teaches a sole (102) with cleats (132-138,142,144) including an anterior plate portion (toe portion of 102) and a posterior plate portion (forefoot, midfoot & heel portion of 102), the anterior plate portion attached to the posterior plate portion along a joint (see dashed line in annotated Figure above); and having a flex zone (see dashed line in annotated Figure above) extending from a first relief on a medial side of the first sole plate to a second relief on a lateral side of the first sole plate (as seen in Fig.6), each of the first relief and the second relief defined by a respective arcuate recess formed along a peripheral edge of the first sole plate and extending to a respective apex (see annotated Figure above).
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 modified the sole plate of Evans to have a flex zone, as taught by Auger, in order to provide a sole that is flexible in the forefoot, to facilitate proper toe-off when the shoe is in use.
Regarding Claim 12, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 11, further comprising a third cleat set (14) disposed in a heel region (15) of the sole structure and including a third plurality of elongate traction elements (11) arranged in a third annular pattern about a second axis (i.e. center point of 14) disposed in the heel region (as seen in Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 13, When in combination, Evans and Auger disclose a sole structure of Claim 12, wherein the flex zone (of Auger is formed between the first cleat set and the third cleat set (of Evans; as seen in Fig.4, the flex zone of Auger would be between 22 and 24).
Regarding Claim 14, When in combination, Evans and Auger disclose a sole structure of Claim 11, wherein the first cleat set (Evans: 22) includes a first one of the traction elements aligned with the first relief and the second relief across a lateral direction of the first sole plate (Evans: as seen in Fig.4, one of 11 in 22 would be aligned with the first relief and the second relief across a lateral direction of the first sole plate of Auger).
Regarding Claim 15, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 12, wherein the third cleat set (14) includes a first one of the traction elements (medial 11) oriented in a first rotational direction about the second axis and a second one of the traction elements (lateral 11) oriented in an opposite second rotational direction about the second axis (as seen in Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 18, Evans discloses a sole structure of Claim 11, wherein each of the first plurality of elongate traction elements (11 of 22) are oriented in a first rotational direction about the first axis (as seen in Fig.4).
2. Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 6,101,746) and Auger (US 2013/0333248), in view of Schiller (US 2016/0286905).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Evans and Auger disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Evans does not disclose the sole further comprising a second sole plate attached to the first sole plate and surrounded by the first plurality of traction elements. However, Schiller teaches a sole having a first sole plate (16), and a second sole plate (68) attached to the first sole plate and surrounded by a first plurality of traction elements (17)(as seen in Fig.3).
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 modified the sole of Evans to include a second sole plate, as taught by Schiller, in order to provide a sole that prevents accumulation of ground surface material, such as mud, dirt, clay, sand, slush, etc., compacting on the sole of the article of footwear in the user activity.
3. Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 6,101,746) and Auger (US 2013/0333248), in view of Auger (US 2012/0180343).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Evans and Auger disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Evans does not disclose wherein each of the traction elements includes a base portion including a first material of the first sole plate and a tip portion including a second material different than the first material. However, Auger ‘343 teaches a sole with traction members including a portion including a first material of the first sole plate (140; para.80) and a tip portion (150) including a second material (para.82) different than the first material (as seen in Fig.1).
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 modified the traction elements of Evans to include a tip portion of a different material from the first sole plate, as taught by Auger ‘343, in order to provide traction elements with enhanced durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts Evans discloses a single, continuous structure (i.e., the base (10)) that may be conceptually divided into regions but cannot be said to include any structural joint where separate plates are attached to one another. The term joint as claimed is more than an arbitrary, conceptual boundary on a continuous plate. The claims recite that the anterior plate is attached to the posterior plate along a joint. This requires a structural connection between distinct elements. Evans' unitary sole plate lacks any such structural feature.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate plates or distinct elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant’s argument that the term joint as claimed is more than an arbitrary, conceptual boundary on a continuous plate, is not found persuasive as Applicant has claimed no structural limitations with regard to the joint. For all these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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, Alissa J. Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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
Prosecution Insights