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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05-13-2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference number 3610 and 3620 are pointed to an empty space (does not relate to any structure). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-16, 21-26, and 28-34 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because of the limitations “a plurality of different sections
forming a wave-like configuration having a plurality of peaks and troughs” and “one or more flex zones aligned with each of the peaks or troughs of the wave-like” lacks support in the original specification which filed 10-22-2024; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Claim 32 is rejected because of the limitations “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” lacks support in the original specification which filed 10-22-2024; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
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.
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 different sections forming a wave-like configuration having a plurality of peaks and troughs (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 each of the peaks or troughs of the wave-like configuration,
wherein the directional traction elements are arranged along the plurality of different sections 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 plurality of different sections and a second set of directional traction elements arranged along a second section of the plurality of different sections, 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, member 34).
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 a peak or trough that is disposed along or adjacent 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 a trough or peak that is disposed along or adjacent 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 another peak or trough that is disposed along or adjacent to the medial side of the outsole (Bacon, fig 3).
Regarding claim 25, Bacon discloses a replaceable traction element provided at a peak or a trough of the wave-like configuration, wherein the replaceable traction element is 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 configuration 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 05-13-2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as analyzed above.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 05-13-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(a) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as analyzed above.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 05-13-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(b) 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 05-12-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because 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.
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