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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02-16-2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 04-08-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 is generic. This is not found persuasive because each of the Species is distinct from each other and applicant does not provide any reason why .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rushbrook (2015/0173456).
Regarding claim 1, Rushbrook discloses a multi segment sole structure (figs 1-7) for use in footwear comprising: two or more segments conjoined and having an upper support surface and an opposing lower base surface (figs 6-7, members 140 and 150);
at least one of said segments is a rigid segment (member 140, para 0080) positioned to correspond to an area of a wearer foot which is weight-bearing and wherein said rigid segment extends substantially across an area that corresponds to a width of a wearer foot (fig 2 and 6);
at least one of said segments is a flexible segment (member 150, para 0080) conjoined to said rigid segment and said flexible segment is positioned and sized to correspond to an area of a wearer foot that is less weight bearing (para 0080).
Regarding claim 5, Rushbrook discloses said rigid segment is a first rigid segment and is located to correspond to a forefoot region of said sole structure, said flexible segment is a first flexible segment (first member 150 at the toe area), and further comprising a second rigid segment (first member 140 at the toe area) conjoined to said first flexible segment.
Regarding claim 8, Rushbrook discloses said rigid segment is a first rigid segment and said flexible segment is a first flexible segment conjoined to said first rigid segment at a first conjoined interface located along a front edge of said first flexible segment; and further comprising a second rigid segment conjoined to said first flexible segment at a second conjoined interface located along a rear edge of said first flexible segment and conjoined to a second flexible segment at a third conjoined interface along a front edge of said second flexible segment; a third rigid segment conjoined to said second flexible segment at a fourth conjoined interface along a rear edge of said second flexible segment; and wherein said first conjoined interface, said second conjoined interface, said third conjoined interface, and said fourth conjoined interface are oriented generally perpendicular to a length of said sole (figs 2 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, Rushbrook discloses one or more of said conjoined interfaces are straight line interfaces (figs 2 and 6).
Examiner Note:
Applicant’s arguments about an applicant 17/710,729, which has been abandoned, have been noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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