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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-20 & 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geser (US 2011/0192056) in view of Cavaliere (US 2015/0305447).
Regarding Claim 1, Geser discloses an article of footwear (Figures 1 & 2) defining a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region (Figures 1 & 2), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (upper shown in Figure 1); and a sole structure (Figures 1 & 2) coupled to the upper, the sole structure comprising: a plate (40 & 42); a midsole (28) defining a midsole height that extends from a bottom side to a top side of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5); and an outsole (30), wherein the midsole defines a plurality of spike apertures (22) that extend from the bottom side of the midsole to the top side of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5), wherein a plurality of spikes (34) are coupled to the plate, and wherein the midsole height increases from the forefoot region to the midfoot region such that the midsole height is largest beneath a metatarsophalangeal point of a user's foot (Figure 2, increases towards the midfoot region). Geser does not specifically disclose the plate includes a plurality of protrusions that extend downwardly therefrom, and wherein a spike mount is housed within each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions. However, Cavaliere discloses a plate (102) includes a plurality of protrusions (124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134) that extend downwardly therefrom, and wherein a spike mount (148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158) is housed within each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a protrusion and place construction, as taught by Cavaliere, to the footwear of Geser, in order to provide varying degrees of traction and flexibility. The combination of Geser and Cavaliere, as modified, disclose the plurality of protrusions of the plate (Cavaliere, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134) is configured to be seated within a plurality of recessed portions defined by the top side of the midsole (Geser, Figure 3, 26; sections and portions of 26).
Regarding Claim 2, Geser discloses the midsole and the outsole extend through the forefoot region and at least partially through the midfoot region (Figures 1 & 2), and wherein the plate extends through the forefoot region, the midfoot region, and at least partially through the heel region (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Geser discloses the outsole defines a ground-engaging surface with plurality of teeth (20, tread, Para. 14) extending away from the ground-engaging surface of the outsole.
Regarding Claim 4, Geser does not specifically disclose the plurality of spikes defining at least three different spike heights (Para. 17 & Figure 2); wherein at least three different spike heights include a first spike height, a second spike height and a third spike height, and wherein the first spike height is less than the second spike height and less than the third spike height. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to experiment with different ranges of height for the spikes in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of desired effect, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the height involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Geser and Cavaliere disclose a plurality of recessed portions are defined within the top side of the midsole (Cavaliere, Figure 1), and wherein the plurality of protrusions of the plate are configured to be seated within the plurality of recessed portions of the midsole (as modified, Cavaliere, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Geser discloses an article of footwear (Figures 1 & 2) defining a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region (Figures 1 & 2), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (upper shown in Figure 1); and a sole structure (Figures 1 & 2) coupled to the upper, the sole structure comprising: a plate (40 & 42); a midsole (28) defining a midsole height that extends from a bottom side to a top side of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5), wherein the midsole height is taken at a maximum thickness of the midsole between the bottom side and the top side of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5); and an outsole (30), wherein the midsole defines a plurality of spike apertures (22) that extend from the bottom side of the midsole to the top side of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5), wherein a plurality of spikes (34) are coupled with the plate within the spike apertures of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5), and wherein the midsole is configured to deform at least 10% of the midsole height, expressed as a percentage (Para. 21-22); and wherein the top side of the midsole defines a plurality of recessed potions (Figure 3, 26; sections and portions of 26). Geser does not specifically disclose the plate includes a plurality of protrusions that extend downwardly therefrom, and wherein a spike mount is housed within each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions. However, Cavaliere discloses a plate (102) includes a plurality of protrusions (124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134) that extend downwardly therefrom, and wherein a spike mount (148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158) is housed within each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a protrusion and place construction, as taught by Cavaliere, to the footwear of Geser, in order to provide varying degrees of traction and flexibility.
Regarding Claim 9, Geser discloses the midsole comprises a supercritical foam (Para. 17).
Regarding Claim 10, Geser does not specifically disclose the supercritical foam includes a plurality of micropores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the midsole as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using foam with micropores (open-cell) would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 11, Geser discloses a portion of a spike of the plurality of spikes that is visible when the midsole is not deformed defines a non-compressed spike length (Para. 21-22), and wherein a portion of the spike that is visible when the midsole is deformed defines a compressed spike length that is greater than the non-compressed spike length (Para. 21-22).
Regarding Claim 12, Geser does not specifically disclose the compressed spike length is between about 175% and about 225% of the non-compressed spike length. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to experiment with different compression for the spike length in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of desired effect, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the compression length involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Geser discloses the midsole is configured to generate a propulsive force after being deformed (the midsole is capable of generating a propulsive force).
Regarding Claim 14, Geser discloses the propulsive force urges the plate upward to retract the plurality of spikes (the midsole is capable of urging the plate upward).
Regarding Claim 15, Geser discloses a portion of a spike of the plurality of spikes that is visible is defined as a spike length (Para. 21-22, Figures 2, 4 & 5), and wherein the spike length is inversely proportional to the midsole height (Para. 21-22, Figures 2, 4 & 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Geser discloses an article of footwear (Figures 1 & 2) defining a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region (Figures 1 & 2), the article of footwear comprising: an upper (upper shown in Figure 1); and a sole structure (Figures 1 & 2) coupled to the upper, the sole structure comprising: a plate (40 & 42); a midsole (28) including a bottom side and a top side (Figures 2, 4 & 5); and an outsole (30), wherein the midsole defines a plurality of spike apertures (22) that extend from the bottom side of the midsole to the top side of the midsole (Figures 2, 4 & 5), the midsole defining a plurality of aperture walls (Figures 4 & 5), wherein a plurality of ground-engaging spikes (34) are coupled to the plate, and wherein the top side of the midsole defines a plurality of recessed potions (Figure 3, 26; sections and portions of 26). Geser does not specifically disclose the plate includes a plurality of protrusions that extend downwardly therefrom, and wherein a spike mount is housed within each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions. However, Cavaliere discloses a plate (102) includes a plurality of protrusions (124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134) that extend downwardly therefrom, and wherein a spike mount (148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158) is housed within each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a protrusion and place construction, as taught by Cavaliere, to the footwear of Geser, in order to provide varying degrees of traction and flexibility.
Regarding Claim 17, Geser discloses a plurality of foam protection rings are disposed around the plurality of spike apertures (the ring of foam material around each spike aperture).
Regarding Claim 18, Geser discloses a lip (Figure 2) extends around a perimeter of the outsole, the lip defining a first undulating profile (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Geser discloses a rim is defined along the bottom side of the midsole (Figure 2), and wherein the rim defines a second undulating profile (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Geser discloses the rim receives the lip when the outsole is coupled to the midsole (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 57, the combination of Geser and Cavaliere disclose the spike mount is one of a plurality of spike mounts (Figure 1), and wherein a spike of the plurality of spikes is removably fastened to each spike mount of the plurality of spike mounts (Figure 1, Para. 46).
Regarding Claim 58, the combination of Geser and Cavaliere disclose the spike mount is one of a plurality of spike mounts (Figure 1), and wherein a spike of the plurality of spikes is removably fastened to each spike mount of the plurality of spike mounts (Figure 1, Para. 46).
Regarding Claim 59, the combination of Geser and Cavaliere disclose the spike mount is one of a plurality of spike mounts (Figure 1), and wherein a ground-engaging spike of the plurality of ground- engaging spikes is removably fastened to each spike mount of the plurality of spike mounts (Figure 1, Para. 46).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geser (US 2011/0192056) in view of Cavaliere (US 2015/0305447) in further view of MacNeill (USPN 3,237,323).
Regarding Claim 5, Geser does not specifically disclose each spike of the plurality of spikes includes a conical tip, a threaded base, and a flange that wraps around a widest portion of the conical tip. However, MacNeill discloses spikes includes a conical tip (70), a threaded base (68), and a flange that wraps around a widest portion of the conical tip (Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include removeable spikes having a spike structure as taught by MacNeill, to the sole of Geser, in order to provide ground traction and increase grip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights