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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09-15-2026. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-16, 21-26, and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon et al. (2018/0000191) in view of Madore (2018/0242688).
Regarding claim 1, Bacon teaches a golf shoe (figs 1-7), comprising: an upper (member 4); and a sole assembly connected to the upper (member 8), the sole assembly comprising a midsole (member 6) and an outsole (member 8), wherein the outsole comprises an outsole zone with a plurality of subzones spatially arranged a wave-like pattern (para 0035), wherein the outsole zone includes a plurality of directional traction elements with sidewalls extending from a lower surface of the outsole and one or more flex zones (member 18) aligned with one peaks or troughs of the wave-like configuration,
wherein the directional traction elements are arranged along different sections of the outsole according to an angular orientation of the sidewalls of the directional traction elements (fig 3),
wherein the directional traction elements include a first set of directional traction elements arranged along a first section of the outsole and a second set of directional traction elements arranged along a second section of the outsole, wherein each of the first set of directional traction elements and the second set of directional traction elements includes a plurality of directionally aligned traction elements with sidewalls that are oriented in a same direction (fig 3).
Bacon does not teach the directional traction elements include a plurality of herringbone traction elements that are connected in series along a medial side of the outsole.
Madore teaches the directional traction elements include a plurality of herringbone traction elements that are connected in series along a medial side of the outsole (figs 2-5, members 34a to 34d).
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 traction element of Bacon by using the herringbone traction of Madore, in order to provide better traction.
Regarding claim 3, the modified footwear Bacon-Madore discloses each of the plurality of herringbone traction elements includes a sloped sidewall and a vertical or substantially vertical sidewall that converge to form a ground contacting or ground penetrating portion of the herringbone traction elements (Madore, fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, the modified footwear Bacon-Madore discloses the plurality of herringbone traction elements includes a first set of herringbone traction elements with sidewalls oriented in a first direction and a second set of herringbone traction elements with sidewalls oriented in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Bacon, fig 3 and Madore, fig 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bacon discloses the first set of directional traction elements is oriented in a first direction, and wherein the second set of directional traction elements is oriented in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 14, Bacon discloses the outsole zone comprises a third section with a third set of directional traction elements (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Bacon discloses the third set of directional traction elements are oriented in a different direction than at least one of the first set of directional traction elements or the second set of directional traction elements (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 16, Bacon discloses the third set of directional traction elements are oriented in a same direction as at least one of the first set of directional traction elements or the second set of directional traction elements (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 21, Bacon discloses the first set of directional traction elements and the second set of directional traction elements are configured to converge towards to a medial side of the outsole (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 22, Bacon discloses a third set of directional traction elements all oriented in a third direction, wherein the third set of directional traction elements and the first or second set of directional traction elements are configured to converge towards to a lateral side of the outsole (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 23, Bacon discloses the third set of directional traction elements is oriented in a different direction than the first set of directional traction elements and the second set of directional traction elements (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 24, Bacon discloses a fourth set of directional traction elements all oriented in a same direction, wherein the third set of directional traction elements and the fourth set of directional traction elements are configured to converge towards the medial side of the outsole (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 25, Bacon discloses a replaceable traction element centered along an axis that coincides with the one or more flex zones (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 26, Bacon discloses the first section and the second section are arranged in series (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 28, the modified footwear Bacon-Madore discloses a height of each of the plurality of herringbone traction elements is constant or uniform (Bacon, para 0013).
Regarding claim 29, the modified footwear Bacon-Madore discloses a height of the plurality of herringbone traction elements changes or varies across the outsole (Madore, fig 1).
Regarding claim 30, Bacon discloses the outsole comprises a heel region with traction elements oriented towards a same side of the golf shoe as the traction elements in a forefoot region of the outsole (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 31, Bacon discloses the wave-like pattern has an amplitude that changes or varies across the outsole (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 32, Bacon discloses the outsole zone comprises a first set of outsole regions comprising a first material comprising a first thermoplastic polyurethane material (Bacon, para 0040) and a second set of outsole regions comprising a second material comprising a rubber material (Bacon, para 0033) or a second thermoplastic polyurethane material with a different hardness than the first thermoplastic polyurethane material, wherein the first set of outsole regions and the second set of outsole regions are interspersed between a forefoot region and a rearfoot region of the golf shoe in an alternating configuration (Bacon, para 0040).
Regarding claim 33, Bacon discloses a reinforcement structure that is attached to a bottom surface of the outsole, wherein the reinforcement structure is integrated with the outsole zone (Bacon, member 28).
Regarding claim 34, Bacon discloses the plurality of herringbone traction elements is configured to extend across a midfoot region of the outsole e (Bacon, fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 09-15-2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 09-15-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(a) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, date 09-15-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “the plurality of herringbone tractions elements. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Madore clearly teaches there are more than one (i.e. plurality) of member 34 (34a, 34b, 34c, 34d… etc).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
