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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05-21-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitations “an outsole includes a first outsole and a second outsole”. It is not clear there is one outsole or multiple outsoles.
Claim 29 is rejected because it recites limitations "a second side that is configured to directly contact the upper". It is not clear how the relationship looks like because the plate either directly contact or not in directly contact with the upper. The limitations seem to claim the second side is capable to contact the upper directly but not clearly says it is contacting or not.
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 § 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) 1-2, 6-7, 10, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bidal et al. (2020/0383422).
Regarding claim 1, Bidal discloses an article of footwear having an upper and a sole structure (figs 11-18), the sole structure comprising:
an outsole having a ground-engaging surface at a bottom end of the sole structure (member 79);
a midsole member disposed between the outsole and the upper, wherein the midsole member has a top that is attached to the upper (member 30, abstract); and
PNG
media_image1.png
562
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sole plate (member 32) disposed between the midsole member and the upper, wherein a first side of the sole plate is configured to face the outsole and a second side of the sole plate is opposite the first side, wherein a portion of the first side of the sole plate is visible from an exterior of the article of footwear through a cutout portion defined by the midsole member (as illustrated in figs 14 &17),
wherein a longitudinal channel extends from a heel end in a heel region toward a midfoot region (fig 13 annotated above), and
wherein the outsole includes a first outsole (members 79 at the forefoot area) positioned in the forefoot region, and a second outsole (other member 79) that is entirely spaced apart from one another the first outsole, such that the ground-engaging surface is not continuous between the multiple first outsole and the second outsole portions (figs 13-17).
Regarding claim 2, Bidal discloses the midsole member includes a pocket that extends from the heel region to a forefoot region, and wherein the sole plate is positioned within the pocket, the sole plate being recessed in the midsole member and
Regarding claim 6, Bidal discloses the sole plate is visible from the exterior of the article of footwear through the cutout portion in the midfoot region and the heel region (figs 14-17).
Regarding claim 7, Bidal discloses the sole plate extends through the midfoot region and spans across an entirety of the cutout portion (figs 13-17).
Regarding claim 10, Bidal discloses the midsole member includes a first midsole member that is made of a first material and a second midsole member that is made of a second material that is different from the first material (para 0095).
Regarding claim 29, Bidal discloses an article of footwear having an upper and a sole structure (figs 1 and 13-17), the sole structure comprising:
an outsole having a ground-engaging surface, the outsole including a first outsole portion in a forefoot region and a second outsole portion in a heel region (members 79);
a midsole member (member 30) disposed between the outsole and the upper, the midsole member having a pocket extending from the heel region to the forefoot region (figs 14-17); and
a sole plate (members 28 and 32) extending from the heel region, through a midfoot region, and into the forefoot region, the sole plate being disposed between the midsole member and the upper, and the sole plate having a first side that is configured to face the outsole and a second side that is configured to directly contact the upper,
wherein, in the heel region, the sole structure is shaped to define an entry region that is configured to increase contact at the ground-engaging surface of the sole structure during a heel strike (figs 8A to 8B), and
the second outsole portion is configured to extend into the entry region, the entry region curving upward to form an angled portion that is substantially flat between a first end and a second end so that the angled portion is angled at an entry angle relative to a flat ground surface, and
wherein a heel end of the sole plate is positioned rearwardly of the first end and forwardly of the second end, such that the first end of the angled portion is closer to the forefoot region than is the heel end of the sole plate and the second end of the angled portion is farther from the forefoot region than is the heel end of the sole plate (figs 1, 8A to 8C).
Regarding claim 30, Bidal discloses the sole plate is disposed within the pocket and recessed in the midsole member (figs 14-17).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. (2020/0383422) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (2017/0035143).
Regarding claims 3-4, Bidal teaches all limitations of the claims except the sole plate includes a plurality of slots; wherein the plurality of slots are linear and disposed in the forefoot region.
Sato teaches a sole plate having a plurality of slots; wherein the plurality of slots are linear and disposed in the forefoot region (fig 11, member 40', para 0056 to 0060).
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 sole plate of Bidal by adding slots of Sato in order to improve bending properties.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. (2020/0383422) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerber (2012/0036740).
Regarding claim 5, Bidal teaches all limitations of the claim except an outer periphery of the sole plate curves laterally to conform to a curvature of the midsole member in the midfoot and heel regions, and the outer periphery extends inward to a decreased width in a forefoot region.
Gerber teaches a shoe comprising a plate having an outer periphery of the sole plate curves laterally to conform to a curvature of the midsole member in the midfoot and heel regions, and the outer periphery extends inward to a decreased width in a forefoot region (fig 7, member 20).
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 sole plate of Bidal by using the sole shape of Sato in order to improve bending properties.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. (2020/0383422) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruce et al. (2018/0132564).
Regarding claim 8, Bidal teaches all limitations of the claim except the sole structure is shaped to define an entry angle in the heel region and an exit angle in a forefoot region with respect to a flat ground surface, and wherein the entry angle is greater than the exit angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
386
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bruce teaches a sols structure having an entry angle in the heel region and an exit angle in a forefoot region with respect to a flat ground surface, and wherein the entry angle is greater than the exit angle (fig 3 annotated above).
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 sole of Bidal by using the angles of Bruce in order to enhance propulsion of the footwear during running and jumping movements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. (2020/0383422) and Bruce et al. (2018/0132564) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gerber (2012/0036740).
Regarding claim 9, the modified shoe Bidal-Bruce teaches all limitations of the claim except the sole plate includes a plurality of notches in the forefoot region.
Gerber teaches a shoe comprising a plate having a plurality of notches (fig 7, members 44 and 45) in the forefoot region.
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 sole plate of Bidal by adding the notches of Gerber in order to allow easier flexion of the foot during walking and running.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. (2020/0383422) in view of Orand (2018/0042338).
Regarding claim 11, Bidal teaches an article of footwear having an upper and a sole structure (figs 1 and 13-17), the sole structure comprising:
an outsole having a ground-engaging surface at a bottom end of the sole structure (member 25), wherein the ground-engaging surface is not continuous between multiple outsole portions across a heel region and a forefoot region of the sole structure (fig 13 annotated above);
a midsole member (members 28 and 30) disposed between the outsole and the upper, wherein the midsole member has a top that is attached to the upper and a pocket extending from the heel region to the forefoot region (figs 1 and 14-17); and
a sole plate (member 32) disposed between the midsole member and the upper, wherein a first side of the sole plate is configured to face the outsole and a second side of the sole plate is opposite the first side.
Bidal does not teach the sole plate includes a plurality of slots disposed in the forefoot region that each have a medial end and a lateral end, wherein a longitudinal axis bisects a heel end and a toe end of the sole structure, the longitudinal axis intersecting each of the plurality of slots between the medial ends and the lateral ends, wherein the medial ends are disposed in the forefoot region, and wherein an outer periphery of the sole plate curves laterally to conform to a curvature of the midsole member in a midfoot region and the heel region, and the outer periphery extends inward to a decreased width in the forefoot region.
Orand teach a sole plate (figs 1-3, member 12) having a plurality of slots (member 28) disposed in the forefoot region that each have a medial end and a lateral end, wherein a longitudinal axis bisects a heel end and a toe end of the sole structure, the longitudinal axis intersecting each of the plurality of slots between the medial ends and the lateral ends, wherein the medial ends are disposed in the forefoot region, and wherein an outer periphery of the sole plate curves laterally to conform to a curvature of the midsole member in a midfoot region and the heel region, and the outer periphery extends inward to a decreased width in the forefoot region (fig 1)
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 sole plate of Bidal by using a sole plate with slots of Orand in order to allow easier flexion of the foot during walking and running.
PNG
media_image3.png
802
456
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the modified sole Bidal-Orand discloses each of the medial ends of the plurality of slots is disposed between the outer periphery of the sole plate adjacent a medial side and the longitudinal axis, and each of the lateral ends of the plurality of slots is disposed between the outer periphery of the sole plate adjacent a lateral side and the longitudinal axis (Orand, fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified sole Bidal-Orand discloses each of the medial ends of the plurality of slots is disposed closer to the toe end than is the lateral end of the slot (fig 3 annotated above).
Regarding claim 15, the modified sole Bidal-Orand discloses the plurality of slots are cutouts (fig 3 annotated above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified sole Bidal-Orand discloses the pocket extends from the heel region to the forefoot region, the sole plate being disposed in the pocket and shaped so that the sole plate is recessed in the midsole member and a peripheral envelope of the pocket bounds an outer periphery of the sole plate, and wherein a portion of the first side of the sole plate is exposed and visible from an exterior of the article of footwear through a cutout portion formed within the midsole member (Bidal, figs 14-17).
Regarding claim 17, the modified sole Bidal-Orand discloses the sole plate extends through the midfoot region and spans across an entirety of the cutout portion (Bidal, figs 14-17).
Regarding claim 18, the modified sole Bidal-Orand discloses the midsole member defines a longitudinal channel extending from the heel end in the heel region toward the midfoot region (Bidal, figs 14-17).
Claim(s) 19-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. (2020/0383422) in view of Orand (2018/0042338) and Gerber (2012/0036740).
Regarding claim 19, Bidal discloses an article of footwear having an upper and a sole structure (figs 1 and 13-17), the sole structure comprising:
an outsole having a ground-engaging surface at a bottom end of the sole structure (member 25);
a midsole member (members 28 and 30) disposed between the outsole and the upper, wherein the midsole member has a top that is attached to the upper and a pocket extending from a heel region to a forefoot region (figs 1 and 14-17); and
a sole plate (member 32) disposed between the midsole member and the upper, wherein a first side of the sole plate is configured to face the outsole and a second side of the sole plate is opposite the first side, wherein the second side of the sole plate is configured to face a bottom of the upper, wherein the top of the midsole member contacts the upper (fig 1),
wherein an outer periphery of the sole plate has a shape that is similar to but proportionally smaller than the midsole member in a midfoot region and the heel region, and the outer periphery extends inward to a decreased width in the forefoot region (figs 14-17).
Bidal does not teach he sole plate includes a plurality of slots that each have a medial end and a lateral end, wherein a longitudinal axis bisects a heel end and a toe end of the sole structure, the longitudinal axis intersecting the plurality of slots between the medial ends and the lateral ends, wherein the medial ends and the lateral ends are disposed in the forefoot region, wherein the sole plate includes a medial side notch and a lateral side notch along the outer periphery in the forefoot region, such that the decreased width is defined laterally between opposing edges of the outer periphery at the medial side notch and the lateral side notch.
Gerber teaches a sole plate includes a medial side notch and a lateral side notch along the outer periphery in the forefoot region, such that the decreased width is defined laterally between opposing edges of the outer periphery at the medial side notch and the lateral side notch (fig 7, members 44-45).
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 sole plate of Bidal by using a sole plate of Gerber in order to allow easier flexion of the foot during walking and running.
Orand teach a sole plate (figs 1-3, member 12) having a plurality of slots (member 28) disposed in the forefoot region that each have a medial end and a lateral end, wherein a longitudinal axis bisects a heel end and a toe end of the sole structure, the longitudinal axis intersecting each of the plurality of slots between the medial ends and the lateral ends, wherein the medial ends are disposed in the forefoot region, and wherein an outer periphery of the sole plate curves laterally to conform to a curvature of the midsole member in a midfoot region and the heel region, and the outer periphery extends inward to a decreased width in the forefoot region (fig 1)
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 sole plate of Bidal by using a sole plate with slots of Orand in order to allow easier flexion of the foot during walking and running.
Regarding claims 20-21, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses the sole plate varies in stiffness along a length of the sole plate, such that a stiffness in the forefoot region is different from a stiffness in the midfoot region, wherein the stiffness in the forefoot region is lower than the stiffness in the midfoot region to allow the sole plate in the forefoot region to be more flexible than in the midfoot region (Bidal, para 0108).
Regarding claim 22, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses the outer periphery of the sole plate curves laterally to conform to a curvature of the midsole member in the midfoot region and the heel region (Gerber, fig 7, member 20).
Regarding claim 23, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses the sole plate is recessed in the midsole member, and wherein the upper is attached to the top of the midsole member in areas adjacent to the outer periphery of the sole plate (Bidal, fig 1).
Regarding claim 24, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses the midsole member defines a cutout portion and the sole plate is visible from an exterior of the article of footwear through the cutout portion in the midfoot region and the heel region (Bidal, figs 14 and 17).
Regarding claim 25, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses midsole member includes a first midsole member (Bidal, member 30) that is coupled to the outsole and a second midsole member (BIdal, member 28) that is positioned between the first midsole member and the upper.
Regarding claim 26, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses the ground-engaging surface of the outsole is opposite an insole of the sole structure (Bidal, figs 14-17).
Regarding claim 27, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses the ground-engaging surface is not continuous between multiple outsole portions (fig 13 annotated above).
Regarding claim 28, the modified sole Bidal-Gerber-Orand discloses in the heel region, the sole structure is shaped to define an entry region that is configured to increase contact at a ground-engaging surface of the sole structure during a heel strike, and the outsole is configured to extend into the entry region (Bidal, fig 8A to 8B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 05-21-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(a) and §112(b) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintain
Applicant's arguments, date 05-21-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: 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.
Argument 2: applicant argues that Bidal sole plate cannot directly contact the upper. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees since the claim only requires that the upper is configured to directly contact the sole plate and Bidal upper definitely able to.
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