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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/22/26 has been entered. Claims 11-11, 17-25 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/22/25.
Lack of Power of Attorney
Power of attorney has not been filed in the application, but is recommended to prevent delays in future prosecution. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 Line 2 before “stability zone” add –at least one—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 21 Line 2 before “flexure zone” add –at least one—
Claim 21 Line 3 before “flexure zone” add –at least one—
Claim 22 Line 2 before “stability zone” add –at least one—
Claim 22 Line 3 before “flexure zone” add –at least one—
Claim 22 Line 4 after “the at least one second cleat” delete “structures” and substitute –structure—
Claim 24 Line 1 before “lateral side” delete “a” and substitute –the— for proper antecedent basis
Claim 24 Line 2 before “medial side” delete “a” and substitute –the—
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “the at least one stability zone covers a majority of a first side of the forefoot region and the at least one flexure zone covers a majority of a second side of the forefoot region” in Claim 23 is considered new matter. In light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the term “majority” has not been established, and therefore the dimensions in which a majority is measured has not been clarified, and is being considered new matter pending clarification.
The term “the at least one stability zone covers a majority of a first side of the forefoot region and the at least one flexure zone covers a majority of a second side of the forefoot region” in Claim 23 is further considered new matter. As best understood from Figs. 1C, 3C, the illustrations may at least suggest that the width of the at least one flexure zone is more than 50% from medial to lateral side in the forefoot region. However, no dimension of the at least one stability zone is found to be more than 50% in a forefoot region as shown in Figs. 1C, 3B. As such, the term “majority” does not seem to be directed to a width either, and therefore is considered new matter.
The term “first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone and a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone” in Claim 25 Lines 1-3 is considered new matter. In light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the term “majority” has not been established, and therefore the dimensions in which a majority is measured has not been clarified, and is being considered new matter pending clarification.
The term “first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone and a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone” in Claim 25 Lines 1-3 is further considered new matter. In light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the term “majority” has not been established, and therefore the dimensions in which covering is occurring has not been clarified and is being considered new matter pending clarification.
The term “first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone and a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone” in Claim 25 Lines 1-3 is even further considered new matter. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the range covered by the term “substantial” and therefore “substantial majority” has not been established, and therefore the range of substantial majority has not been clarified, and is being considered new matter pending clarification.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “The article of footwear of claim 1 cleat plate further comprising” in Claim 21 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether there are claim limitations missing and/or if there are extraneous claim terms, and therefore how to interpret the claim. Should the claim read “The article of footwear of claim 1 wherein the cleat plate further comprises”? Or should the claim read “The article of footwear of claim 1 further comprising”?
The term “at least one stability zone covers a majority of a first side of the forefoot region” in Claim 23 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the metes and bounds for the term is unclear. Furthermore, based on Fig. 3B, no dimension has been found in which at least one stability zone covers a majority of a forefoot region, which further makes the metes and bounds for the term unclear. Is a “side” pertaining to the perimeter? Such as a lateral perimeter? Or is a “side” pertaining to an area of a forefoot region? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as at least one stability zone exists at a forefoot region.
The term “at least one flexure zone covers a majority of a second side of the forefoot region” in Claim 23 Lines 2-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the metes and bounds for the term is unclear. Furthermore, based on Fig. 3C, though the illustration may at least suggest a width of at least one flexure zone being more than 50% of a forefoot region, interpreting the term “majority” as a width would still not make the “majority of a first side of the forefoot region” definite, which seems to indicate that the term “majority” cannot be interpreted as a dimensional width, which further makes the metes and bounds for the term unclear. Is a “side” pertaining to the perimeter? Such as a medial perimeter? Or is a “side” pertaining to an area of a forefoot region? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as at least one flexure zone exists at a forefoot region.
The term “a first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone” in Claim 25 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the metes and bounds for the term “majority” is unclear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by the existence of the first midsole component as the first midsole component would then constitute part of the at least one stability zone.
The term “substantial” in “a first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone” in Claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim further indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis.
The term “a first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone” in Claim 25 is even further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially as neither the term “substantial” nor the term “majority” is definite, the term “substantial majority” is even further indefinite. Is the recitation indicating that the covering is substantially a majority, such that the covering is not a majority?
The term “a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone” in Claim 25 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the metes and bounds for the term “majority” is unclear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by the existence of the second midsole component as the second midsole component would then constitute part of the at least one flexure zone.
The term “substantial” in “a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone” in Claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim further indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis.
The term “a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone” in Claim 25 is even further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially as neither the term “substantial” nor the term “majority” is definite, the term “substantial majority” is even further indefinite. Is the recitation indicating that the covering is substantially a majority, such that the covering is not a majority?
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 17, 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USPN 7650707) in view of Glancy et al (USPN 10568391), herein Glancy.
Regarding Claim 1, Campbell teaches an article of footwear defining a hindfoot region, a forefoot region, a lateral side, and a medial side (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 2A, 2B for regions and sides, wherein Fig. 2B is a lateral side; Col. 15 Line 30 "sole structure 200"; wherein the embodiment utilized is Figs. 2A,2B unless otherwise noted; Col. 15 Lines 26-28 "Figs. 2A and 2B…parts with the same or similar structure and function to those shown in the example of Figs. 1A through 1D will be labeled with the same reference numbers"), the article of footwear comprising:
a sole structure (200) including:
a cleat plate (see Figs. 2A, 2B for at least Col. 15 Lines 50-51 "outsole member 204"; for cleat—Col. 16 Lines 25-30 “traction elements 210 at various locations on the exterior surface 102 of the outsole member 204…any number and/or desired type of traction element 210 may be provided …and such traction elements 210 may be located at any desired position(s) on the exterior surface 102”) comprising
at least one stability zone (see Fig. 2B; Col. 15 Lines 42-50 "in this example structure 200, the lateral reinforcing structure(s) (e.g., structures used to make the lateral side more stable and/or less flexible than the medial side) extend or are provided essentially along the entire lateral side of the sole structure. While the lateral reinforcing structure may be provided in any desired manner...a support base member 202 is provided along the lateral side"; as such, with 202 on the lateral side, the at least one stability zone is the lateral side of the cleat plate) and
at least one flexure zone (Col. 15 Lines 42-50, wherein the medial side of the cleat plate is therefore the at least one flexure zone),
a plurality of traction elements coupled to the cleat plate (see Figs. 2A, 2B for coupled; Col. 16 Lines 24-25 "Figs. 2A and 2B further illustrate...traction elements 210"), the plurality of traction elements including
at least one first cleat structure coupled to the at least one stability zone of the cleat plate (see Fig. 2A for 110 on lateral side)
and at least one second cleat structure coupled to the at least one flexure zone of the cleat plate (see Fig. 2A for 110 on medial side).
Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B embodiment does not explicitly teach wherein the cleat plate is thinner in the at least one flexure zone than in the at least one stability zone.
However, Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B indicate that the thin areas (lines of flex) may vary (Col. 15 Lines 35-39 "sole structure 200….various lines of flex and recessed segments may be provided at locations to enhance flexibility of the sole structure").
Campbell Figs. 1A-1D embodiment teaches wherein the cleat plate is thinner in the at least one flexure zone than in the at least one stability zone (see Fig. 1D; Col. 8 Lines 57-58 "recessed segments 108 and 110 in this illustrated example structure 100 provides lines of flex"; as such, flexure zone/medial side thinner as it has more of the flex lines than the stability zone/lateral side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell Fig. 2A,2B embodiment with the flexure zones of Figs. 1A-1D especially as Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B teaches variation (Col. 15 Lines 35-39) and Campbell Figs. 1A-1D indicate that such variation is allowed with the rest of the structures 9Col. 16 Lines 24-30; Col. 15 Lines 42-50), in order to provide the flexibility where desired (Col. 15 Lines 35-39).
Campbell Fig. 2A, 2B embodiment also does not explicitly teach comprising an upper,
wherein the first cleat structure is differently configured than the second cleat structure; and
a midsole arranged between the upper and the cleat plate.
Glancy teaches an article of footwear (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Line 67 "shoe 20") comprising:
an upper (see Fig. 1; Col. 3 Line 67 "shoe 20 includes an upper 22");
the plurality of traction elements (see Fig. 2; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Line 67-Col. 4 Line 2 "shoe 20 includes an upper 22 coupled …to a sole 24 with a plurality of cleats 30 provided on the sole 24"; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27"; see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 60-61 "cleats 30 include a plurality of stability cleats 33 and a plurality of standard cleats 35"; Col. 5 Lines 58-60 "cleats 33…as lateral cleats 32, and the standard cleats 35 are…medial cleats 34") including
at least one first cleat structure (32/33) coupled to the at least one stability zone (see Fig. 2; Col. 5 Line 47 "lateral cleats 32", Col. 5 Lines 58-60 "cleats 33…as lateral cleats 32”, wherein stability zone is lateral)
and at least one second cleat structure (34/35) coupled to the at least one flexure zone (see Fig. 2; Col. 5 Line 48 "medial cleats 34"; Col. 5 Lines 58-60 "cleats 33…as lateral cleats 32, and the standard cleats 35 are…medial cleats 34", wherein relative to the stability cleats, the cleat structure 34/35 is flexure and therefore flexure zone is medial),
wherein the first cleat structure is differently configured than the second cleat structure (see Fig. 2; Col. 5 Lines 47-48 "plurality of lateral cleats differs from the plurality of medial cleats"); and
a midsole arranged between the upper and the cleat plate (27) (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27"; Fig. 1 shows upper above sole 24, wherein Fig. 2 shows outsole/plate 27 at bottom; therefore, midsole is arranged in middle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell's traction elements/arrangement to be that of Glancy’s as a simple substitution of cleat arrangements for providing one side more stable than another (Col. 5 Lines 43-47) in order to have effective athletic shoes, especially golf shoes (Col. 2 Lines 30-32), all of which Glancy is directed to as well (Col. 15 Lines 42-50; Col. 3 Line 67).
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell’s sole structure to have the upper arrangement (upper/midsole) as taught by Glancy, and thereby be the article of footwear as recited, as a known effective shoe arrangement for athletic shoes, as aforementioned.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Glancy further teaches wherein the at least one first cleat structure (32/33) includes at least one softer leg (60) comprised of a first material having a first durometer (Col. 5 Lines 49-50 "cleats 32 include different types of legs of differing hardness", wherein having legs of differing hardness indicates at least one softer leg as recited, especially in light of Col. 4 Line 62-Col 5 Line 2 "stability cleats 33 include one or more static traction elements 50…and one or more dynamic traction elements 60…static legs 50 are defined by a first durometer value, while the dynamic legs 60 are defined by a second durometer value that is lower than the first durometer value") and
at least one harder leg (50) comprised of a second material having a second durometer that is greater than the first durometer (especially in light of Col. 4 Line 62-Col 5 Line 2 "stability cleats 33 include one or more static traction elements 50…and one or more dynamic traction elements 60…static legs 50 are defined by a first durometer value, while the dynamic legs 60 are defined by a second durometer value that is lower than the first durometer value", wherein having a softer leg indicates a harder leg, and therefore a second material).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Glancy further teaches wherein the at least one softer leg includes a first leg arranged on a first half of the cleat (see Fig. 3, wherein static legs 50 are on a first half)
and at least two second legs arranged on an opposite second half of the cleat (see Fig. 3, wherein dynamic legs 60 are on another half),
said first material extending continuously from the first leg to the at least two second legs (see Fig. 3 for continuous).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Glancy further teaches wherein the at least one harder leg (50) is arranged on the first half of the cleat (see previous rejections).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Glancy further teaches wherein the first leg and the at least two second legs are formed in a fanned configuration (see Figs. 3, 5 for fan).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Glancy further teaches wherein the at least one stability zone is arranged on a lateral side of the sole structure (see Fig. 2, wherein stability cleats 33/lateral 32 on lateral side)
and the at least one flexure zone is arranged on a medial side of the sole structure (see Fig. 2, wherein medial cleats 34/standard cleats 35 on medial side).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Campbell further teaches a groove positioned between the at least one stability zone and the at least one flexure zone (see Campbell embodiment Fig. 1D for Col. 11 Lines 42-47 "lines of flex 114 formed therein corresponding to the locations of the recessed segments 108 and 110 on the opposite forefoot surface 102 of the sole structure. These interior lines of flex 114 can help further promote the desired flexibility characteristics of the overall sole structure 100"; see Fig. 1A; Col. 15 Lines 12-15 "various recessed segments 108 and 110 divide the outsole member bottom surface 102 into a plurality of different regions, such as medial and lateral").
Regarding Claim 17, Campbell teaches an article of footwear (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 2A, 2B; Col. 15 Line 30 "sole structure 200"; wherein the embodiment utilized is Figs. 2A,2B unless otherwise noted; Col. 15 Lines 26-28 "Figs. 2A and 2B…parts with the same or similar structure and function to those shown in the example of Figs. 1A through 1D will be labeled with the same reference numbers") comprising:
a sole structure (200) including:
a plate comprising at least one first zone having a first thickness (see Figs. 2A, 2B; Col. 15 Lines 50-51 "outsole member 204"; wherein the existence indicates a first zone with a first thickness; nevertheless, see lateral side)
and at least one second zone having a second thickness (see medial side of 204, wherein existence indicates a second zone with a second thickness),
a plurality of cleats coupled to the plate (Col. 16 Lines 24-25 "Figs. 2A and 2B further illustrate...traction elements 210"),
the plurality of cleats including a first cleat type (lateral cleat) and a second cleat type (medial cleat),
wherein a majority of the plurality of cleats in the first zone are the first cleat type (see Fig. 2A lateral side)
and a majority of the cleats in the second zone are the second cleat type (see Fig. 2A medial side).
Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B embodiment does not explicitly teach a second thickness (of the medial side) that is different than the first thickness (lateral side).
However, Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B indicate that the thin areas (lines of flex) may vary (Col. 15 Lines 35-39 "sole structure 200….various lines of flex and recessed segments may be provided at locations to enhance flexibility of the sole structure").
Campbell Figs. 1A-1D embodiment teaches wherein the plate comprises at least one first/lateral zone having a first thickness and at least one second/medial zone having a second thickness that is different than the first thickness (see Fig. 1D; Col. 8 Lines 57-58 "recessed segments 108 and 110 in this illustrated example structure 100 provides lines of flex"; as such, flexure zone/medial side thinner as it has more of the flex lines than the stability zone/lateral side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell Fig. 2A,2B embodiment with the flexure zones of Figs. 1A-1D especially as Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B teaches variation (Col. 15 Lines 35-39) and Campbell Figs. 1A-1D indicate that such variation is allowed with the rest of the structures 9Col. 16 Lines 24-30; Col. 15 Lines 42-50), in order to provide the flexibility where desired (Col. 15 Lines 35-39).
Campbell also does not explicitly teach comprising an upper.
Glancy teaches an article of footwear comprising an upper (see Fig. 1; Col. 3 Line 67 "shoe 20 includes an upper 22"; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27"; Fig. 1 shows upper above sole 24, wherein Fig. 2 shows outsole/plate 27 at bottom; therefore, midsole is arranged in middle).
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell’s sole structure to have the upper arrangement as taught by Glancy, and thereby be the article of footwear as recited, as a known effective shoe arrangement for athletic shoes, as aforementioned.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Campbell further teaches a midsole positioned between the upper and the sole structure (Glancy 27) (see Glancy Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27"; Fig. 1 shows upper above sole 24, wherein Fig. 2 shows outsole/plate 27 at bottom; therefore, midsole is arranged in middle).
a shank (Campbell 202) positioned between the midsole and the sole structure (see Campbell Col. 15 Lines 42-52 Col. 15 Lines 42-50 "in this example structure 200, the lateral reinforcing structure(s) (e.g., structures used to make the lateral side more stable and/or less flexible than the medial side) extend or are provided essentially along the entire lateral side of the sole structure. While the lateral reinforcing structure may be provided in any desired manner...a support base member 202 is provided along the lateral side, e.g. between the outsole member 204 and an impact attenuating member (such as a midsole member)").
Regarding Claim 20, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Glancy further teaches wherein the first cleat type (32/33) includes at least one softer leg (60) comprised of a first material having first durometer (see Fig. 2; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Line 67-Col. 4 Line 2 "shoe 20 includes an upper 22 coupled …to a sole 24 with a plurality of cleats 30 provided on the sole 24"; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27"; see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 60-61 "cleats 30 include a plurality of stability cleats 33 and a plurality of standard cleats 35"; Col. 5 Lines 58-60 "cleats 33…as lateral cleats 32, and the standard cleats 35 are…medial cleats 34"; for softer leg-- (Col. 5 Lines 49-50 "cleats 32 include different types of legs of differing hardness", wherein having legs of differing hardness indicates at least one softer leg as recited, especially in light of Col. 4 Line 62-Col 5 Line 2 "stability cleats 33 include one or more static traction elements 50…and one or more dynamic traction elements 60…static legs 50 are defined by a first durometer value, while the dynamic legs 60 are defined by a second durometer value that is lower than the first durometer value") and
and at least one harder leg (50) comprised of a second material having a second durometer that is greater than the first durometer (especially in light of Col. 4 Line 62-Col 5 Line 2 "stability cleats 33 include one or more static traction elements 50…and one or more dynamic traction elements 60…static legs 50 are defined by a first durometer value, while the dynamic legs 60 are defined by a second durometer value that is lower than the first durometer value", wherein having a softer leg indicates a harder leg, and therefore a second material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell's traction elements/arrangement to be that of Glancy’s as a simple substitution of cleat arrangements for providing one side more stable than another (Col. 5 Lines 43-47) in order to have effective athletic shoes, especially golf shoes (Col. 2 Lines 30-32), all of which Glancy is directed to as well (Col. 15 Lines 42-50; Col. 3 Line 67).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Campbell further teaches at least one groove separating the stability zone from the flexure zone (see modified Campbell Fig. 1D),
wherein the cleat plate is thinner along the at least one groove than in flexure zone (side wall of the groove is along the at least one groove; the portion of the cleat plate with the side wall is thinner, due to the groove, than other portions of the flexure zone without the groove).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Glancy further teaches at least one first cleat mount connected to the stability zone (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 50-51 "sole 24 includes a plurality of cleat mounts 28…configured to releasably receive a cleat 30"; Col. 4 Lines 60-61 "cleats 30 include a plurality of stability cleats 33 and a plurality of standard cleats 35"; specifically, 30 for 32, 33)
and at least one second cleat mount coupled to the flexure zone (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Line 50-51, 60-61; specifically, 30 for 34, 35),
wherein the at least one first cleat structure is coupled to the at least one first cleat mount and the at least one second cleat structure is coupled to the at least one second cleat mount (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 50-51, 60-61).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Campbell further teaches wherein the at least one stability zone covers a majority of a first side of the forefoot region and the at least one flexure zone covers a majority of a second side of the forefoot region (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Campbell teaches the at least one stability/flexure zones which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering a majority of the first/second sides of the forefoot region, especially as the zones cover/span their respective perimeters).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Campbell further teaches wherein the first side is a lateral side and the second side is a medial side (see above, the respective perimeters being of the lateral/medial sides).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USPN 7650707) in view of Glancy et al (USPN 10568391), herein Glancy, further in view of Whiteman et al (US Publication 2018/0360156), herein Whiteman.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the upper comprises a lockdown system including a lockdown band extending from the lateral side to the medial side of the article of footwear,
the lockdown band having less than 5% stretch.
Whiteman teaches wherein the upper comprises a lockdown system including a lockdown band extending from the lateral side to the medial side of the article of footwear (see Fig. 17A; [0111] "embroidered elements 655 extending within a forefoot portion 660 of the shoe 600 on both the medial side 630 and the lateral side 635").
Whiteman at least suggests the lockdown band having less than 5% stretch ([0006] "at least a portion of the at least one first fiber embroidered onto the exterior surface of the base layer may be at least partially fused to the exterior surface of the base layer…first fiber may…include…thermoplastic polyurethane...nylon"; [0056] "invention allows for the treatment of fabrics/textiles (e.g., ...woven...textiles...)"; [0111] “embroidered elements 655 adapted to provide support and directional resistance to stretch”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the nylon stretch and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, it is known in the art that the material of the embroidered element utilized (nylon) is essentially non-stretchable (see extrinsic evidence Terlizzi USPN 6076284).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell’s upper, as provided by Glancy, with the lockdown system of Whiteman in order to provide support and direction resistance to stretch ([0111]).
Claim(s) 9-11, 18, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (USPN 7650707) in view of Glancy et al (USPN 10568391), herein Glancy, further in view of Kurcinka et al (US Publication 2019/0116929), herein Kurcinka.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Campbell teaches wherein a first midsole component is comprised of a first foam having a first recovery value (Col. 12 Lines 13-17 "midsole elements…may be provided…such as conventional foam or other impact-attenuating materials", wherein the existence of foam indicates a first recovery value),
a second midsole component (Col. 12 Lines 13-17 for plurality; see also Col. 6 Lines 19-23 "one or more of the impact-attenuating members may be less flexible and/or more stable on the lateral side as compared to its medial side"; Col. 17 Line 43 "midsole or other impact-attenuating element(s) 520).
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the midsole includes:
a first midsole component extending from the hindfoot region to the forefoot region,
a second midsole component extending from the hindfoot region to the forefoot region,
wherein the second midsole component is comprised of a second foam having a second recovery value,
the second recovery value being greater than the first recovery value.
Kurcinka teaches a first midsole component (32) extending from the hindfoot region to the forefoot region (see Fig. 1, [0032], [0035]; see Figs. 1 and 2 for extent of 32; [0038] "both the first cushioning body 30 and the second cushioning body 32 are each of continuous configurations that extend in the forefoot region 24, the midfoot region 26, and the heel region 28"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 comprises and is formed from a second foam material different than the first foam material"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness" wherein it is known in the art that foam is compressible to some degree),
wherein the first midsole component is comprised of a first foam having a first recovery value (see Fig. 2; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 comprises and is formed from a second foam material different than the first foam material"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness", wherein the existence of the aforementioned foam indicates a first recovery value); and
a second midsole component (30) extending from the hindfoot region to the forefoot region ([0037] "first cushioning body 30 comprises and is formed from a first foam material"; see Figs. 1 and 2 for extent of 30; [0038] "both the first cushioning body 30 and the second cushioning body 32 are each of continuous configurations that extend in the forefoot region 24, the midfoot region 26, and the heel region 28"),
wherein the second midsole component is comprised of a second foam having a second recovery value ([0037] "first cushioning body 30 comprises and is formed from a first foam material"; [0016] "second foam material different than the first foam material"; [0037] "first foam material and the second foam material may each be any of...polyurethane (PU) foam...ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA) foam...or other foams, with the resulting second cushioning body being harder than the first cushioning body"; wherein the existence of the second aforementioned foam indicates a second recovery value),
the second recovery value being greater than the first recovery value ([0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness"; as such, 30 is softer than 32, wherein second is softer than first; inasmuch as [0055] of applicant's specification has indicates that a greater recovery value is softer, Kurcinka's indication of [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness" of the first cushioning body 30 meets the recitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell’s midsole(s) to be that of Kurcinka’s as a known midsole arrangement for desired cushioning ([0003]), especially being in the same art of endeavor of athletic footwear as Campbell (Col. 1 Lines 60-65; Col. 7 Lines 20-25).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Kurcinka further teaches wherein the second midsole component is nested and confined within a cavity of the first midsole component in the hindfoot region ([0038] "first cushioning body 30 and the second cushioning body 32...interfit with one another in different vertical and lateral arrangements in the different regions of the sole 10"; see Figs. 1 and 2 where second midsole 30 interfits/nests within 32; [0054]),
and wherein the second midsole component is laterally adjacent to and abuts the first midsole component along a seam in the forefoot region (for laterally adjacent-- see Figs. 1 and 7, where second midsole 30 is laterally adjacent to first midsole 32, such as in Fig. 7, the lateral/right side of 30 is adjacent to 32; for abuts -- see Figs. 1 and 7, wherein Fig. 7 is of the forefoot; [0038] "first and second cushioning bodies 30, 32 are flush with one another at their respective extremities at the exterior surfaces of the sole 10 where they abut one another, including at a foot-facing exterior surface 40, a ground-facing exterior surface 42, a medial side exterior surface 44, and a lateral side exterior surface 46"; for central seam-- the seam follows [0045] “medial extremity 54” of 32; see Figs. 1 and 7, wherein Fig. 7 is of the forefoot),
the seam extending through the midsole from an upper surface to a lower surface of the midsole (see Fig. 7 for extending from upper to lower especially in light of [0038] flush).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Modified Campbell further teaches wherein the first midsole component (Kurcinka 32) is exposed to an upper surface of the cleat plate in the stability zone of the cleat plate (see Kurcinka Fig. 7, where 32 is exposed to upper surface of cleat plate of Campbell underneath 32 on the lateral side/stability side),
and wherein the second midsole component (Kurcinka 30) is exposed to the upper surface of the cleat plate in the flexure zone (see Kurcinka Fig. 7, where 30 is exposed to upper surface of cleat plate of Campbell underneath 30 on the medial side/flexure zone).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Campbell further teaches a midsole positioned between the upper and the sole structure (Glancy 27) (see Glancy Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27"; Fig. 1 shows upper above sole 24, wherein Fig. 2 shows outsole/plate 27 at bottom; therefore, midsole is arranged in middle),
the midsole comprising a first foam portion (see Campbell Col. 12 Lines 13-17 "midsole elements…may be provided…such as conventional foam or other impact-attenuating materials"; as for extends over—Col. 15 Lines 49-52 “support base member 202 is provided…between the outsole member 204 and…midsole member”; inasmuch as an element can be between outsole and midsole, the midsole extends over the outsole; inasmuch as a foam midsole exists, there is a first foam portion).
and a second foam portion (inasmuch as a foam midsole exists, there is a second foam portion)
wherein the first foam has a first recovery value (the existence of the first foam indicates a first recovery value)
and the second foam has a second recovery value (the existence of the second foam indicates a second recovery value).
Campbell does not explicitly teach the midsole extends over the first zone of the plate,
the midsole extends over the second zone of the plate,
the second recovery value that is different than the first recovery value.
Kurcinka teaches the midsole comprising a first foam portion (32) of a first/lateral zone (see Fig. 1, [0032], [0035]; see Figs. 1 and 2 for extent of 32; [0038] "both the first cushioning body 30 and the second cushioning body 32 are each of continuous configurations that extend in the forefoot region 24, the midfoot region 26, and the heel region 28"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 comprises and is formed from a second foam material different than the first foam material"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness" wherein it is known in the art that foam is compressible to some degree; as for lateral zone-- see Fig. 7)
the midsole comprising a second foam portion (30) of a second/medial zone ([0037] "first cushioning body 30 comprises and is formed from a first foam material"; see Figs. 1 and 2 for extent of 30; [0038] "both the first cushioning body 30 and the second cushioning body 32 are each of continuous configurations that extend in the forefoot region 24, the midfoot region 26, and the heel region 28"; as for medial zone—see Fig. 7),
wherein the first foam has a first recovery value (see Fig. 2; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 comprises and is formed from a second foam material different than the first foam material"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness", wherein the existence of the aforementioned foam indicates a first recovery value)
and the second foam has a second recovery value that is different than the first recovery value 0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness"; as such, 30 is softer than 32, wherein second is softer than first; inasmuch as [0055] of applicant's specification has indicates that a greater recovery value is softer, Kurcinka's indication of [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness" of the first cushioning body 30 meets the recitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell’s midsole(s) to be that of Kurcinka’s as a known midsole arrangement for desired cushioning ([0003]), especially being in the same art of endeavor of athletic footwear as Campbell (Col. 1 Lines 60-65; Col. 7 Lines 20-25).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Campbell teaches wherein the first foam portion (Kurcinka 32) extends over the first/lateral zone of the plate (see Kurcinka Fig. 7, where 32 is exposed to upper surface of cleat plate of Campbell underneath 32 on the lateral side/stability side)
and the second foam portion (Kurcinka 30) that extends over the second/medial zone of the plate (see Kurcinka Fig. 7, where 30 is exposed to upper surface of cleat plate of Campbell underneath 30 on the medial side/flexure zone).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Campbell teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Campbell teaches wherein the midsole includes a first midsole component covering a substantial majority of the stability zone (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Glancy Fig. 1; Col. 2 Line 29 "Fig. 1 shows a lateral side view", which the at least one stability zone would belong to; see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 24-26 "sole 24 generally includes a midsole and an outsole or plate 27. The midsole may be formed of a compressible material such as foam…e.g. ethylene vinyl acetate foam”; Glancy teaches the first midsole component and therefore covers a substantial majority of the recited zone, such as extending along the lateral perimeter),
wherein the first midsole component is formed of a first compressible material having a first recovery value (Glancy Col. 4 Lines 24-26, wherein the existence of the foam indicates a compressible material of recovery value).
Modified Campbell at least suggests wherein the midsole includes a second midsole component covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone (see Glancy Fig. 1 and recitations wherein there is no indication that the midsole of Glancy would not also span to the medial side and therefore be a second midsole component and therefore covers a substantial majority of the recited zone, such as extending along the medial perimeter).
Campbell does not explicitly teach and the second midsole component is formed of a second compressible material having a second recovery value that is different from the first recovery value.
Kurcinka teaches wherein the midsole includes a first midsole component (32) covering a substantial majority of the stability zone and a second midsole component (30) covering a substantial majority of the flexure zone (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1, wherein 30 and 32 cover a substantial majority such as along their respective perimeters at the forefoot; [0032], [0035]; [0038] "both the first cushioning body 30 and the second cushioning body 32 are each of continuous configurations that extend in the forefoot region 24, the midfoot region 26, and the heel region 28"),
wherein the first midsole component (32) is formed of a first compressible material having a first recovery value (see Fig. 2; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 comprises and is formed from a second foam material different than the first foam material"; wherein the existence of the aforementioned foam indicates a first recovery value and it is known that foam is compressible to some degree)
and the second midsole component (30) is formed of a second compressible material having a second recovery value that is different from the first recovery value (for second compressible material with second recovery value -- [0037] "first cushioning body 30 comprises and is formed from a first foam material"; wherein the existence of the aforementioned foam indicates a second recovery value and it is known that foam is compressible to some degree; for different values-- [0037] "second cushioning body 32 comprises and is formed from a second foam material different than the first foam material"; [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness"; [0037] "first foam material and the second foam material may each be any of...polyurethane (PU) foam...ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA) foam...or other foams, with the resulting second cushioning body being harder than the first cushioning body"; as such, 30 is softer than 32, wherein second is softer than first; inasmuch as [0055] of applicant's specification has indicates that a greater recovery value is softer, Kurcinka's indication of [0037] "second cushioning body 32 has a second hardness greater than the first hardness" of the first cushioning body 30 meets the recitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell’s midsole(s), as provided by Glancy, to be that of Kurcinka’s as a simple substitution of one known midsole arrangement for another in order to provide for desired cushioning ([0003]), especially being in the same art of endeavor of athletic footwear as Campbell (Col. 1 Lines 60-65; Col. 7 Lines 20-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/26 pertaining to Claims 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Remarks pages 12-18 are directed to both Claims 1-17, indicating that Claim 17 does not teach a cleat plate that “is thinner in the at least one flexure zone than in the at least one stability zone” along with a plurality of traction elements coupled to the cleat plate including “at least one first cleat structure coupled to the at least one stability zone…and at least one second [different] cleat structure coupled to the at least one flexure zone.” However, Claim 17 has not been amended and does not contain the indicated language. As a courtesy, the claims herein have been examined for their merits; and as Claim 17 is directed to differing thicknesses, the responses below pertaining to the “thinner” limitation will also be applied to Claim 17’s thicknesses, as the rejections/interpretations are similar.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1/22/26 pertaining to Claims 1-11, 21-25 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 15 that the Office’s argument is that Campbell’s lines of flex could be “made as wide or as long…where desired…extending the thinned out portion of a line of flex” – examiner respectfully disagrees, as the remarks have misunderstood the rejection. As best understood, the arguments believe the extension is made in order to meet the recitation of “thinner” in Claim 1 and differing thicknesses of Claim 17. However, no such extension is being made. Attention is directed to page 6 of the office action of 10/22/25 for the actual teaching of “thinner” for Claim 1 (similarly applied to Claim 17 “differing thicknesses). The Office’s stance is that though Campbell embodiment of Figs. 2A,2B do not explicitly teach that the at least one flexure zone is thinner than the at least one stability zone, Campbell embodiment of Figs. 1A-1D teach the recitation. A zone is interpreted as an area, and as the area has grooves (as agreed upon by applicant on page 15 of the remarks), the area has at least a portion (provided by the groove) that is thinner in the flexure zone than a portion of an area without a groove in the stability zone. It is the layout of the flex lines of Figs. 1A-1D that are being applied to the main embodiment of Campbell Figs. 2A, 2B.
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 15, it is unclear why remarks indicate that [Campbell] does not show any cleats arranged on any of the ‘lines of flex.’” No such limitation has been claimed by applicant, and no such teaching was made by the examiner. This argument is repeated on page 17 that “no disclosure in [Campbell]] that any cleat…should be arranged along a line of flex.” As best understood, examiner again clarifies that the zones are an area of the outsole and/or footwear, and not necessarily limited to, for example, just a groove/line of flex as a flex zone. This can be seen on page 6 of the office action of 1/22/25, where the cleat structures are indicated as being coupled to the at least one stability zone/on lateral side/area and to the at least one flexure zone/on medial side/area.
Pertaining to remarks on page 16 requesting clarification of the second modification of Campbell by Glancy pertaining to the upper—attention is directed to page 8 of the office action of 10/22/25, “to modify Campbell’s sole structure to have the upper arrangement as taught by Glancy”. To further clarify, Campbell does not explicitly illustrate an upper/midsole, and therefore a modification was made to provide Campbell with the upper/midsole (upper arrangement/arrangement above a sole) of Glancy.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that the Office is teaching cleats along a line of flex—as aforementioned, examiner respectfully disagrees, as no such modification or teaching was made, and the remarks have misunderstood the rejection. Modifications by Campbell by Glancy are to teach 1) two different types of cleats and 2) to provide an arrangement above a sole (upper and midsole).
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that Glancy does not teach the thinner limitation, the remarks are piecemeal, as the limitation was met by a modification of Campbell by its own embodiment. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Glancy and Campbell are further in the same art of endeavor as being directed to cleats in flexible/stable areas, as indicated on page 7 of the office action of 10/22/25.
Pertaining to remarks on 17 that “cleats would …be arranged in the different equally thick regions of Campbell”—examiner respectfully disagrees, and again reiterates that the existence of grooves indicates that regions have varying thicknesses in various portions.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that the rejection is hindsight-- In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732