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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03-09-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected because it recites limitation “a second resin composition”. It is not clear this limitation is the same with “s second resin composition” in claim 1 or not.
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.
Claim 13 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. In this instant case the claim recites limitation “the sole structure comprises a second resin composition” which does not further limit the claim. 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.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 13-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr et al. (2019/0343221) in view of Cass et al. (2019/0104806).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Farr teaches an article of footwear (figs 1A-8) comprising an upper (member 612) and a sole structure (member 613), and a thermal bond coupling the upper to the sole structure, wherein the upper comprises a first polymeric composition (para 0030); wherein the sole structure comprises a plate (para 0024), the plate comprises a polyolefin-based resin (para 0051) composition comprising a polyolefin copolymer (para 0053), a polymeric resin modifier (para 0054), and a thermoplastic vulcanizate (para 0048), wherein the thermal bond comprises polymers of the polyolefin-based resin of the plate entangled with the first polymeric composition of the upper (para 0030 showing that the resin is melt then bonded together); the sole structure further comprises a traction element comprising a second resin composition (para 0048).
Farr does not clearly teach the TPV comprises about 5 percent to about 30 percent by weight of a total weight of the polyolefin-based resin composition; and wherein the second resin composition having a coefficient of friction that is greater than a coefficient of friction of the polyolefin-based resin composition.
However, Farr teaches that the polyolefin resin can be made of different percentages (para 0044, 0048, 0051, 0058, and 0062 to 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to try different percentages in order to achieve a "design need" or "market demand" (MPEP 2144.05 II).
In addition, Cass teaches a sole structure (fig 3) having a coefficient of friction of a traction element (member 40) being greater than a coefficient of friction of plate (member 50, para 0006 and 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the shoe of Farr by using the different coefficient of friction between the traction and other layer, as taught by Cass, in order to provide better traction for the shoe.
Regarding claim 2, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the article of footwear includes a bond between the sole structure and the upper (para 0030), and wherein the bond between the sole structure and the upper forms a bite line between the sole structure and the upper (para 0047).
Regarding claim 5, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the polyolefin copolymer comprises a plurality of repeat units, with each of the plurality of repeat units individually derived from an alkene monomer having about 1 to about 6 carbon atoms (Farr, para 0056).
Regarding claim 6, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the polymeric resin modifier comprises about 10 percent to about 15 percent ethylene repeat units by weight based upon a total weight of the polymeric resin modifier (Farr, para 0065).
Regarding claim 7, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the TPV comprises a crosslinked elastomer (Farr, para 0119) dispersed in a thermoplastic phase.
Regarding claim 8, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the TPV comprises a EPDM rubber dispersed in a thermoplastic phase, and wherein the thermoplastic phase comprises polypropylene (Farr, para 0048).
Regarding claim 9, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the crosslinked elastomer of the TPV includes a cured polyolefin rubber (Farr, para 0137).
Regarding claim 14, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the second resin composition comprises a polyolefin that is different from the polyolefin copolymer of the polyolefin-based resin composition (Far, para 0202).
Regarding claim 15, the modified shoe Farr-Cass r discloses the polyolefin of the second resin composition is a polyolefin chosen from polypropylene, polypropylene-poly ethylene copolymers, copolymers of ethylene and higher olefins (para 0384), or a blend thereof (Farr, para 0202).
Regarding claim 16, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses in the sole structure, the second resin composition comprises a thermoplastic elastomeric polyester polyurethane (Farr, para 0106), a thermoplastic polyether polyurethane (Farr, para 0121), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 17, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the sole structure comprises a second element, and wherein the second element comprises the second resin composition (Farr, para 0048 and 0342).
Regarding claim 18, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the second element comprises a traction element (Farr, para 0048), a chassis (Farr, para 0048), a textile, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 19, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the sole structure has a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is configured to be ground-facing (Farr, fig 7A, para 0380).
Regarding claim 20, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the first side of the sole structure includes a plurality of traction elements, wherein one or more of the plurality of traction elements are integrally formed in the sole structure, and wherein the one or more of the plurality of traction elements comprise the polyolefin-based resin composition (Farr, fig 7A).
Regarding claim 22, the modified shoe Farr-Cass discloses the chassis can wrap around the sole structure (Farr, para 0047) or the plate and engage or be attached to the upper above the bite line.
Claim(s) 3, 10-12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr et al. (2019/0343221) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Droege at el. (2009/0300945).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, the modified shoe Farr-Cass teaches all limitations of the claims and Farr further teaches the article of footwear further comprises a toe bumper, the toe bumper straddles the bite line between the sole structure and the upper (fig 1C annotated above) at least in a forefoot portion of the upper, and the toe bumper, wherein the toe bumper comprises a second resin (the toe bumper is part of the sole; therefore it is made of resin composite), is bonded to the upper, to the plate, or to both the upper and the plate (para 0026 and 0037).
Farr does not clearly teach the toe pumper is secure to a peripheral edge of the sole structure, wherein the toe bumper comprises a protrusion that extends outward from a toe portion with a convex shape.
Droege teaches a toe pumper is secure to a peripheral edge of a sole structure (figs 12-14, member 1229), wherein the toe bumper comprises a protrusion (member 1227) that extends outward from a toe portion with a convex shape (para 0134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole structure of Farr by adding the toe bumper secures to the peripheral of the sole and a protrusion, as taught by Droege, in order to add another protection to the sole and the user.
Regarding claim 10, the modified shoe Farr-Cass-Droege does not clearly teach the toe bumper comprises a same resin composition as the plate, wherein the same composition comprises a same polyolefin-based resin composition, a same TPV, or any combination thereof. However, Farr discloses, at least, in para 0048 that member 118 (the toe bumper is part of member 118) can be the same material of the plate in order to save the cost of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 11, the modified shoe Farr-Cass-Droege discloses the second resin composition comprises one or more styrene copolymers, wherein the one or more styrene copolymers comprises a SBS copolymer or a SEBS copolymer (Farr, para 0048 to 0050).
Regarding claim 12, the modified shoe Farr-Cass-Droege discloses the second resin composition is a thermoplastic elastomeric second resin composition, and wherein the thermoplastic elastomeric second resin composition is thermally bonded to the polyolefin-based resin composition of the sole structure, or to the upper, or to both the polyolefin-based resin composition of the sole structure and the upper (Farr, para 0046 and 0281).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 03-09-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(a) and §112(b) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, date 03-09-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented and they have been address as analyzed above.
Argument 2: applicant argues that Farr does not teach that TPV is about 5 to 30 percent by weight of the total weight of the polyolefin-based resin composition. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees even though Farr does not especially teach the specific range as claimed. However, Farr teaches plurality of different amount of material which is mixing with the polyolefin; therefore it is obvious to have different mixing amount based on the “deign need” or “market demand”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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 D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights